Seeds of t t es rue I ~re

Seeds of Destruction

F. William Engdahl .

Seeds of Destruction'
The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Global Research

Seeds of Destruction. The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation,
by F. William Engdahl- First Edition
© F. William Engdahl, Global Research, Centre for Research on Globalization. All rights reserved, 2007.

No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission of the publisher. Global Research is a division of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), 11, rue Notre-Dame Ouest, P.o. Box 55019, Montreal, Quebec, H2Y 4A7, Canada. For more information, contact the publisher at the above address or by email at our website at http://www.g1obalresearch.ca The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The publisher will not be held liable for the material contained in this book or any statements, omissions or inaccuracies pertaining thereto. FIRST EDITION Cover graphics by Nicolas Calve and Sarah Choukah, © Global Research 2007 Printed and bound in Canada. Printed on chlorine-free 100% post-consumer recycled paper. ISBN 978-0-9737147-2-2 Legal Deposit: Bibliotheque et Archives nationales du Quebec Library and Archives Canada

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication
Engdahl, F. William, 1944Seeds of destruction: the hidden agenda of genetic manipulation I F. William Engdahl. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-9737147-2-2 1. Plant biotechnology- Political aspects- United States. 2. Plant genetic engineering - Political aspects - United States. 3. Transgenic plants - Political aspectsUnited States. 4. Agricultural biotechnology-Political aspects - United States. I. Centre for Research on Globalization. II. Title. SBl06.B56E542007

C2007 -905814-0

I dedicate this book to Gottfried Gloeckner, farmer, friend, self-taught scientist, whose personal courage in the face of untold pressure may have saved more lives than he or we shall ever know.

Also by F. William Engdahl A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order


INTRODUCTION •••.•••..•••.••.•..•...•..••..••.•.••••


PART I The Political Beginnings ................................ 1 CHAPTER 1

Washington Launches the GMO Revolution ............. 3 Early GMO Research .................................. 3 The Fraud of "Substantial Equivalence" ................. 4 "Nature's Most Perfect Food ... " ........................ 8 FDA and Monsanto Milk the Public ................... 11 Monsanto's Cozy Government Relations ............... 15

The Fox Guards the Hen-House ...................... 21 Science Bending the Knee to Politics ................... 21 A Bomb Falls on the GMO Project ..................... 22 Blair, Clinton and "Political" Science ............. , ..... 25 A Not-so-ethical Royal Society Joins the Attack .......... 28 Science in the Corporate Interest ....................... 29
PART II The Rockefeller Plan .................................. 35 CHAPTER


"Tricky" Dick Nixon and Trickier Rockefellers .......... 37 America's Vietnam Paradigm Shift ..................... 37 David Rockefeller's "Crisis of Democracy" .............. 39 Kissinger and Food Politics ........................... 42

............ ........ 61 Brazil as NSSM 200 "Model" .. 102 The ''American Century"-The US Lebensraum ........ ...... .. 56 Population Growth and National Security . ....................... ... 45 Nixon's Agriculture Export Strategy ... . 84 Yes.. ... .. .................. .... 114 In Brazil and Venezuela ...... " .... .................... . ... .........VIII SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION The "Great Grain Robbery" .. .. ... . " ...... .... .. . 51 CHAPTER 4 A Secret US National Security Memo .............. 75 "Calling a Spade a Spade ....... 79 JDR Ill's Population Council and the "Crypto-eugenics" . .... ............ ... . ... .. 108 The Rockefeller-Wallace Report .. .................... 56 Food for Cargill & Co.. 107 Skeletons in Rockefeller's Dark Closet . . . 102 Preparing a Post-War Empire ........ ... ..... 71 Rockefeller Supports Eugenics ........................... .. ....... .. Hello Dolly .......................... 94 CHAPTER 6 Fateful War and Peace Studies . .... 74 "The Best of Breed"-Eugenics and the "Master Race" .... . ....... .... . ... ... ........... 69 Human Guinea Pigs ............ 72 Combating "The Human Cancer" .. ... 105 Nelson Ventures in Latin America . ..... . 60 The Unlucky Thirteen .. . 90 From Eugenics to Genetics .......... 73 The Rockefellers' Darker Secrets ........ ... .... : ...... .......... .. .... 69 "Second Only to Control of Atomic Weapons . ..... . ....... ..... ......... . ........... . ............ 116 .... 64 CHAPTER 5 The Brotherhood of Death . 43 "When in Rome ... 111 Early Agribusiness: Rockefeller Teams up with Cargill ...... ... ... .. ................... ............... 46 "Food as a Weapon" .... .... . . .............. . ... ... ................. " . .......... ..... ....... ........... .

. ... .... ...... ......... " ............. .................. 160 PART IV Unleashing GMO Seeds ... .. CHAPTER CHAPTER 123 123 127 132 133 136 8 Food is Power ... "Where Have all the Farmers Gone?" . 152 Capturing the Golden Rice Bowl .. .......... ....... ................ 153 Reducing Life .. ...... 175 Argentina Is the First Guinea Pig ..................... ... 175 How a Debt Crisis Makes Argentina a Soybean Giant ...... .. ......... .... 160 "Golden Rice" and Black Lies ..... ......SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION IX III Creating Agribusiness ..... ...... ...... ....... ................ 152 The "New Eugenics": Reductio ad absurdum .... ... ......... ........... ......... ... 188 Let Them Eat Soybeans! . ........ ................ .......... ..................... 203 ... ...... 155 Mapping the Rice Genome· .... .. ... .. ................ . 190 CHAPTER 10 Iraq Gets American Seeds of Democracy ... 197 Bremer's Order 81 ... ............... ..... 121 PART 7 Rockefeller and Harvard Invent USA ''Agribusiness'' .. .............................. .. Training Cadre for the Bio-Revolution ....... Argentina .................... 173 CHAPTER 9 A Revolution in World Food Production Begins . ................... 202 No Seeds to Plant ................ . Rockefeller Finances the Creation of Agribusiness .......... A Green Revolution Opens the Door . 185 Monsanto Conquers with Deception ......... .. . ....... ........ 177 Rockefeller's Argentina Land Revolution ............ 177 Breaking Argentina's National Will ......... 200 Iraqi Seed Treasure Destroyed ........... .. .......... .... .Monopoly and Vertical Integration Return with a Vengeance ..... .. 182 "Soybeans for Me. 197 US-style Economic Shock Therapy .. ........... '.... ... .... ...

.......... 267 Killing Us Softly............ 284 Agribusiness Gains in Avian Flu Scare ... ..... .............. 270 A Very Special Kind of Corn . ............ Traitors.. 219 WTO and Bad TRIPS ... " ..... .... . ........... 216 US Agribusiness Moves to Dominate .. 282 Kissinger and Biological Warfare ....... .................. 275 CHAPTER 13 Avian Flu Panic and GMO Chickens ....... ....... ............ .............. 221 Having Your Cake and Eating it too .... Spermicidal Corn ................ ........... Rockefeller and the World Health Organization . .......... ......... ... ........ 232 Letting the GMO Genie Out of the Bottle . 205 Iraq... 246 PART V Population Control ...... 257 "Two Steps Forward. ..... Ever so Softly.......... 272 Tetanus..... Then One Step Backward . ................. .................. 235 Licensing Life Forms . 270 From Terminator Suicide Seeds to Spermicidal Corn .. .. " ................. Damn Lies and Monsanto Lies. .... . ... ..................... 255 CHAPTER 12 Terminators... 273 The Hidden GMO Agenda Emerges ...... USA and the IMF Dictates ......... 227 GMO and Pentagon Deals ..... ..... ........ 240 GMO Soybeans and Infant Death? ............. ....... ..................... 209 CHAPTER 11 Planting the "Garden of Earthly Delights" ................ 245 Africa's Fake "Wonder Potato" ........... . ............ 238 Lies.. '. . 285 A World GMO Chicken? . . 287 ............. 224 The Four Horsemen of the GMO Apocalypse ......... 257 The Guardian Angel Saves the GMO Project .. Killing Us Softly With ........... 216 The IPC and the Agribusiness Lobby .. Pasta?" ........... . 261 "Push it Down Their Bloody Throats .. 282 The President Helps out a Friend ...........................x SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION "Let Them Eat ................

... • . ... . . . .. .. . . .. .. .. . . .. . • . • . ..... • . • ... . . . GLOSSARY OF TERMS . . . . • .. . . .. . .. . ... . .. . 296 Selling Seeds of Destruction Everywhere .. . . . .. • • • . . .. . .. .... . 301 AFTERWORD • • . • . • . .... ... . . • . ..... ..• • ... . 305 Geneticists Who "Play at Being God" . . .. . • • .. . • . . .. . . .... . • . . • •••.. ... . • . .. . INDEX ... . . . • . • • . . .... . .. . ... .. .. ..... . . 299 Patents on the Semen of Pigs and Bulls? . ... • ... BIBLIOGRAPHy .. .. .. .... . . . 306 311 314 322 333 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS .. • • • • . • .. • .. ... .. . .SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION XI CHAPTER 14 Genetic Armageddon: Terminator and Patents on Pigs .... .... ... .. 299 1980 US Supreme Court Ruling ... . .. • .. .. .. . . • • . 294 EU Patent Office Approves Terminator . .. . • .. .. ..... .. .. . 294 Monsanto Finally Takes Delta & Pine Land . • . .


and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. 1948 T his book is about a project undertaken by a'small socio-political elite.INTRODUCTION "Wehave about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6. It is the untold story of how this self-anointed elite set out. In this situation. in which even science was put in the service of that minority. and without the "luxury of altruism and world-benefaction. but in Washington. US State Department senior planning official. As Kennan recommended in his 1948 internal memorandum.3% of its population. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. centered. not in London. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. It's above all a history of the evolution of power in the control of a select few." . we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming. we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. after the Second World War. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction:' George Kennan. they pursued their policy relentlessly. to "maintain this position of disparity:' It is the story of how a tiny few dominated the resources and levers of power in the postwar world. in Kennan's words. To do so.

C. who proclaimed proudly at war's end the dawn of their American Century. For that reason. It was funded. sometimes with derision but more often with praise. unlike their predecessors within leading circles of the British Empire. under the banner of colonialliberation. the fate of entire nations. It traces a second thin red line of power. freedom. a life-long practitioner of "Balance of Power" geopolitics and a man with more than a fair share of conspiracies under his belt. Originally the families centered their wealth and power in New York and along the East Coast of the United States. a "kinder. were masterful in their use of the rhetoric of altruism and world-benefaction to advance their goals. well before the outbreak of war in the late 1930's." The strategic goal to control global food security had its roots decades earlier. Kissinger. those elite circles built a network of power the likes of which the world had not seen since the time of Alexander the 'Great some three centuries before Christ-a global empire unified under the military control of a sole superpower. by select private foundations. was Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. from Boston to New York to Philadelphia and Washington D. as the East Coast Establishment. our daily provision of bread. often with little notice. popular media accounts often referred to them. Their American Century paraded as a softer empire. which had been created to preserve the wealth and power of a handful of American families. The center of gravity of American power shifted in the decades following the War. Control the food. The East Coast Establishment was overshadowed by new centers of power which evolved from Seattle to . This one is about the control over the very basis of human survival. gentler" one in which. this emerging American elite. A Century ofWar: AngloAmerican Oil Politics and the New World Order. able to decide on a whim. Sometime in the mid-1970's. democracy and economic development.XIV SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Yet. allegedly declared his blueprint for world domination: "Control the oil and you control nations. and you control the people. This book is the sequel to a first volume. The man who served the interests of the postwar American-based elite during the 1970's. and came to symbolize its raw realpolitik.

What was unusual about this family was that early on in the building of their fortune. the dawn of the much-heralded American Century. and its applications in the world of plants and agriculture. In the course of researching for this book. III-who. in the three decades following American victory in World War II. the patriarchs and advisors they culti. and. Today. LasVegas. just as the tentacles of American power spread to Asia and Japan. Atlanta and Miami. Three decades ago. biology. sev- .vated to safeguard their wealth decided to expand their influence over many very different fields. Few Americans were aware how their lives were being subtly. Laurance and John D. and on their control of a new "black gold.' oil. medicine and psychology. Nelson. influenced by one or another project financed by the immense wealth of this family. their work passed unnoticed by the larger population. They also expanded their influence over the education of youth. shaped the evolution of power George Kennan referred to in 1948. that powerwas based around the Rockefeller family. to the nations of Latin America. the story of GMO is that of the evolution of power in the hands of an elite. foreign policy of the United States. as well as in Houston. three of the four brothers are long-since deceased. especially in the United States.INTRODUCTION xv Southern California on the Pacific Coast. and sometimes not so subtly. and south. a work nominally on the subject of genetically modified organisms or GMO. And the vast fortune of that family had been built on the blood of many wars. the emerging new energy source for world economic advance. significant for our story. They sought control not merely over oil. In actual fact. over the very science of life itself. and the four brothers-David. it soon became clear that the history of GMO was inseparable from the political history of this one very powerful family. the Rockefeller family.s emerging American Century more than any other. one family came to symbolize the hubris and arrogance of thi. For the most part. In the several decades before and immediately following World War II. determined at all costs to bring the entire world under their sway.

Three of the four private companies had decades-long ties to Pentagon chemical warfare research. . wheat. above all. even vegetables and fruits and cotton-as well as new strains of disease-resistant poultry. In May 2003. before the dust from the relentless US bombing and destruction of Baghdad had cleared. genetically-modified to allegedly resist the deadly HSNI Bird Flu virus. as was their will. The fourth. Their actions are an inseparable part of the story of genetically modified crops today. George Kennan. or even gene altered pigs and cattle. The story of the genetic engineering and patenting of plants and other living organisms cannot be understood without looking at the history of the global spread of American power in the decades following World War II. the President of the United States chose to make GMO a strategic issue. as well as to expand dependency on energy products. nominally headquartered in Washington in the early years of the new century. often through a rhetoric of "democracy:' and was aided from time to time by the raw military power of that empire when deemed necessary. a priority in his postwar US foreign policy.XVI SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION eral under peculiar circumstances. However. Averell Harriman and. Their project evolved to the point where one small power group. The stubborn resistance of the world's second 1 . to create new markets for petto-chemical fertilizers and petroleum products. rice.it was clear that rio more than four giant chemical multinational companies had emerged as global players in the game to control patents on the very basic food products that most people in the world depend on for their daily nutrition-corn. created the very concept of multinational "agribusiness': They financed the "Green Revolution" in the agriculture sector of developing countries in order. nominally Swiss. the four Rockefeller brothers. Henry Luce. among other things. was in reality Anglodominated. stood determined to control future and present life on this planet to a degree never before dreamed of. their project of global domination-"full spectrum dominance" as the Pentagon later called it-had spread. By the early years of the new century. so was GMO agribusiness very much an Anglo-American global project. As with oil. soybeans.

the rest of the world's nations would remain skeptical and hesitant. If it reads often like a crime story. The following pages trace the spread and proliferation of GMO. Washington proceeded to bring the agriculture of Iraq under the domain of patented genetically-engineered seeds. In the wake of the US and British military occupation of Iraq. carries stakes which are vastly more important to this small elite. France. the ultimate control over future life on this planet. the World Trade Organization (WTO) had forced open the door of the European Union to the mass proliferation of GMO. It appeared that global . the Bank of England.. the European Union. Their actions are not solely for money or for profit.INTRODUCTION XVII largest agricultural producer. As long as Germany. This aspect of the GMO story needs telling. and even murder. stood as a formidable barrier to the global success of the GMO Project. the present group behind the GMO Project is between one and two decades away from total dominance of the planet's food capacities. took place back in the early 1990's in a country whose elite had long since been corrupted by the Rockefeller family and associated New York banks: Argentina. The crime being perpetrated in the name of agricultural efficiency. however. The first mass experiment with GMO crops. governmental pressure. Left unchecked. . After all. I therefore invite the reader to a careful reading and independent verification or reasoned refutation of what follows. that should not be surprising. Their aim is rather. environmental friendliness and solving the world hunger problem. often through political coercion. a supremacy earlier dictators and despots only ever dreamt of. these powerful private families decide who controls the Federal Reserve. success was near at hand for the GMO Project. Money is in their hands to destroy or create. Greece and other countries of the European Union steadfastly refused to permit GMO planting for health and scientific reasons. the Bank of Japan and even the European Central Bank. Austria. fraud. lies. By early 2006. initially supplied through the generosity of the US State Department and Department of Agriculture.


The Political Beginnings .PART I.


In one domain. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. A curious aspect of the regulatory history of GMO foods and genetically-engineered products in the United States was that. During the 1980's. the government showed extreme partisanship in favour of the biotech agribusiness industry. the Reagan Administration acted in key areas of economic policy in ways which echoed the radical policies of the President's close ally. The very . . out of DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) and RNA (Ribonucleic Acid) research. as both were deeply committed advocates ofradical free market policies and less government involvement. Reagan's Administration was determined to take a back seat to noone in seeing to it that America was Number One. There was a special relationship between the two. combining to give the private sector free reign. beginning in the Reagan era. that of the emerging field of genetic engineering which developed. however.'CHAPTER 1 Washington Launches the GMO Revolution T Early GMO Research he issue of biotechnology and genetic-modification of plants and other life forms first emerged from research labs in the United States in the late 1970's. some years before.

numerous agribusiness corporations were in a gold rush frenzy to develop GMO plants. The purpose . for defoliation of jungle areas in Vietnam during the 1960's. It also had a long record of fraud. livestock and GMObased animal drugs. By the early 1980's. was to discuss the "deregulation" of the emerging biotech industry. Rather to the contrary. Missouri. The agribusiness companies wanted to keep it that way. It had developed the deadly herbicide. Food safety was no exception. Agent Orange. The Reagan-Bush Administration was partly driven by an ideological agenda of imposing deregulation.4 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION US Government agencies entrusted with the mandate to safeguard the health and safety of the overall population were becoming dangerously biased. George W. Monsanto Corporation of St . reducing Government supervision in every facet of daily life. . There was no regulatory system in place to control the development.. cover-up and bribery. The Fraud of "Substantial Equivalence" In 1986. risks and sale of the products. for a special White House strategy meeting. and father of the later President. The · key actor within the Reagan Administration on decisions pertaining to the new field ofgenetically modified products was former head of the CIA. Some years before. Claire Hope Cummings. the first commercial GMO product hit the market in the US. Vice President George Herbert Walker Bushwho would himself soon be President.Louis. according to former US Department of Agriculture official. of the unpublicized meeting. the Reagan Administration had been moving quietly to open its doors wide to Monsanto and other private companies which were developing gene-manipulated products. and even if that meant the general population could become guinea pigs for entirely untested new health risks. Monsanto had had a long history of involvement with the US Government and even with Bush's CIA. Bush. Vice President Bush hosted a group of executives from a giant chemical company.

announced that "biotech products will receive the same oversight as other products:' and "not be hampered by unnecessary regulation. Bush and his Vice President Dan Quayle moved swiftly to implement an agenda giving unregulated free-rein to Monsanto and other major GMO companies. as head of Bush's Council on Competitiveness. developed through biotech. 3 They determined that no special agency was needed to oversee the revolutionary new field. In line with the expressed wishes of the biotech industry. . despite repeated efforts by concerned Congressmen that such laws were urgently needed to regulate unknown risks and possible health dangers from the genetic engineering of foods. Further clearing the path for Monsanto and company. The framework that Bush put in place was simple. were competent to evaluate the risks of GMO products. instead of being hampered by unnecessary regulation:'2 Pandora's Box had been opened by the Bush-Quayle Administration. such as the US Department of Agriculture. Vice President Quayle. Indeed. the responsibilities for the four different agencies were kept intentionally vague. Quayle told executives and reporters. the US Government would regard genetic engineering of plants and foods or animals as merely a simple extension of traditional animal or plant breeding. 1992. food processors and farmers."l On May 26. the Bush Administration decided that traditional agencies. Vice President Dan Quayle proclaimed the Bush administration's new policy on bioengineered food. Bush decided it was time to make public the regulatory framework which he had negotiated a few years earlier behind closed doors. the EPA. "We will ensure that biotech products will receive the same oversight as other products.WASHINGTON LAUNCHES THE GMO REVOLUTION 5 When he finally became President in 1988. the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). "The reforms we announce today will speed up and simplify the process of bringing better agricultural products. to consumers. not one single new regulatory law governing biotech or GMO products was passed then or later." Mr. Furthermore.

"This is the industry's pet idea. few paid any attention to the enormous implications of genetic engineering on such a mass scale. 4 Their voices went unheeded by the Bush Administration. it appeared that the new GMO products were being carefully screened. allowing Monsanto and the other GMO operators maximum leeway to introduce their new genetically engineered crops. . there is no data to back up their contention:' Other Government scientists concluded there was "cimple scientific justification" to require tests and a government I review of each genetically engineered food before it was sold.. And no foundation was more important in the financing of this emerging sector of biotechnology than the Rockefeller Foundation in New York. Yet. The general public naturally assumed that the Food and Drug Administration or the National Institutes of Health were concerned about their well-being. Pribyl. try and private scientific laboratories would "voluntarily" police themselves in the new field of genetically engineered plants and animals. They had cut their deal with Monsanto and the emerging biotech agribusiness industry. of the Food & Drug Administration was one of 17 government scientists working on a policy for genetically engineered food at the time. . to the outside world. "The possibility of unexpected. Louis J. At that early stage.. There were repeated warnings from senior US government scientists of the potential dangers to the Bush-Quayle "no regulation" decision.6 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION That vagueness ensured overlap and regulatory confusion. outside a small circle of scientists being financed by the largesse of a handful of foundations. Pribyl wrote a heated warning memo to the FDA Chief Scientist declaring. Pribyl knew from studies that toxins could be unintentionally created when new genes were introduced into a plant's cells. accidental changes in genetically engineered plants justifies a limited traditional toxicological study:' they declared. Despite serious warnings from research scientists about the dangers of recombinant DNA research and biotechnology work with viruses. Dr. namely that there are no unintended effects . the US Government opted for a system in which the indus. . But time and time again.

the very concept of "substantial equivalence" was itself pseudo-scientific. Substantial equivalence was a phrase which delighted the agribusiness companies. In an Executive Order. Genetic modification of a plant or organism involved taking foreign genes and adding them to a plant such as cotton or soybeans to alter their genetic makeup in ways not possible through ordinary plant reproduction. Because of the Bush Administration's "substantial equivalence" ruling. Bush was ready to open the Pandora's Box of GMO. merely because GMO corn looked like ordinary corn or GM rice or soybean. The doctrine of "substantial equivalence" had been created primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring biochemical or toxological tests. President George H. That determination that GMO phints were to be treated as "substantially equivalent" ignored the qualitative internal alteration required to genetically engineer the particular crop. DNA segment to alter its genetic character. Its premise was deceitful. Genes from one . no special regulatory measures would be required for genetically engineered varieties. for Monsanto and the others had created it. and even tasted more or less like conventional corn. rice or cotton. such as ordinary corn. As serious scientists pointed out. 5 The doctrine of "substantial equivalence" was the lynchpin of the whole GMO revolution. Genetic engineering differed from traditional methods of plant and animal breeding in very important respects. as Bush's science advisers well knew. It meant that a GMO crop could be considered to be the same as a conventional crop. it was "substantially" the same as the natural plant. hybridization and selective breeding had resulted in crops adapted to specific production conditions and regional demands. That wasn't surprising. and because in its chemkal composition and nutritional value.WASHINGTON LAUNCHES THE GMO REVOLUTION 7 By 1992. the President made the ruling that GMO plants and foods were "substantially equivalent" to ordinary plants of the same variety. In agricultural varieties. soybeans. Often the introduction was made by a gene "cannon" literally blasting a plant with a foreign bacteria or .W.

8 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION organism could be extracted and recombined with those of another (using recombinant DNA. The US Government agencies never ruled against the gene giants. The engineered products were no more "substantially equivalent" to the original than a tiny car hiding a Ferrari engine would be to a Fiat. technology) without either organism having to be of the same species. The fateful Pandora's Box had indeed been opened. removing the requirement for species reproductive compatibility. or rONA. With the Bush Administration 1992 ruling. was no longer the stuff of science fiction.. why should anyone have to bother to test the "substantially equivalent" GMcorn. so went the argument. or GM milk hormones produced by Monsanto and the other agribusiness companies? In most cases. . The FDA declared . This was a genetic manipulation patented by Monsanto. while companies such as Monsanto argued for "substantial equivalence:' they also claimed patent rights for their genetically modified plants on the argument that their genetic engineering had created substantially new plants whose uniqueness had to be protected by exclusive patent protection. soybean. Ironically. the US Government treated GMO or bio-engineered foods as "natural food additives:' therefore not subjecting them to any special testing. the Government regulatory agencies simply took the data provided to them by the GMO companies themselves in order to judge that a new product was fine. and no one seemed to be overtly concerned.. Second. The fictional horrors of the "Andromeda Strain:' the unleashing of a biological catastrophe. that was to be upheld by every successive Administration. " T~e first mass-marketed GMO food was milk containing a recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone. "Nature's Most Perfect Food . Genetic engineering introduced a foreign organism into a plant in a process that was imprecise and unpredictable. new genetic combinations could be produced in a highly accelerated way. They saw no problem in having their cake and eating it too . known as rBGH. If it wasn't necessary to test normal corn to see if it was healthy to eat. The danger was real.

Epstein. Monsanto advertised that farmers should "leave no cow untreated:' One state agriculture commissioner termed rBGH "crack for cows" because of its extraordinary stimulating effects on milk output. and had a possible link to cancer. cows woUld typically produce up to thirty percent more milk. hormone stimulation that got cows to pump 30% more milk had other effects. 7 Not surprisingly. IGF-l. Samuel Epstein. stimulating the cell division within the animal and hindering cell death. 6 Monsanto's new Posilac rBGH hormone not only stimUlated the cow to produce more milk. a recognized authority on carcinogens. Farmers began to report their cows burned out by as much as two years sooner. which it sold under the trade name Posilac. the cows had to be injected with more antibiotics to treat those effects. The rBGH hormone constituted a huge temptation for struggling dairy farmers. The FDA countered the growing criticism by using data provided by Monsanto. in effect. meaning that some of them could not walk. severely criticized the . cancers which might not appear for years after initial exposure. warning that Monsanto's rBGH hormone increased the levels of insulin-like growth factors.WASHINGTON LAUNCHES THE GMO REVOLUTION 9 the genetically-engineered milk safe for human consumption before crucial information on how the GM milk might affect human health was available. which regUlated the cow's metabolism. For the struggling farmer. from the University of Illinois's School of Public Health. was linked to the creation of human cancers. and that many cows had serious hoof or udder infections as a by-product of the rBGH hormone treatment. Monsanto claimed that if injected regularly with rBGH. diligently holding up to the doctrine of substantial equivalence. warned of a growing body of scientific evidence that the InsUlin-like Growth Factor (IGF-l). which. In the process it stimUlated production of another hormone. Various independent scientists spoke out. In turn. One of the most vocal scientists on the matter was Dr. not surprisingly. a thirty percent jump in output per cow was astonishing and virtually irresistible. This is where problems began to appear.

also assumed a top post in the FDA as Deputy Director of Human Food Safety at the beginning of the 1990's. an investigative arm of the US Congress. 10 Monsanto's chief scientist. By then. this is not something knowledgeable people have concerns abouf'8 That was hardly reassuring for anyone aware of the relationship between Monsanto and the FDA leadership. But not just any old garden variety of Washington lawyers. Only years later did the University finally release the data. which was finally forced to give up the investigation with no results. Both the University of Vermont and Monsanto refused to cooperate with the GAO. With Monsanto's chief rBGH scientist. was called in to investigate the allegations.. In 1991. Taylor to be its first head. The unexpected leak from the upstart whistleblower was embarrassing for both Monsanto and the University receiving Monsanto research dollars. Monsanto had spent more than half a million dollars to fund the University of Vermont test trials of rBGH. King & Spalding. which indeed showed the negative health effects of rBGH. Robert Collier...10 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION independent scientists. to say the least. retorted that. They have publicly restated human safety confidence . without an . with tongue firmly in cheek. had made numerous public statements asserting that rBGH cows had no abnormal levels of health problems compared with regular cows. Dr. "In fact the FDA has commented several times on this issue . it was too late. As ·a food and drug law specialist with the Washington power firm. and deformed births. The agency named Michael R. In 1991. Margaret Miller.. including mastitis. Miller. however. Taylor had previously successfully represented Monsanto and other biotech companies in regulatory cases. in direct opposition to his alarmed researcher. Dr.. an inflammation of the udder. a scientist at the University of Vermont leaked to the press that there was evidence of severe health problems affecting rBGH-treated cows. The chief scientist of the project. the Food and Drug Administration created the new position of Deputy Commissioner for Policy to oversee agency policy on GMO foods. 9 The US General Accounting Office. In this position. Taylor caine to the job as a Washington lawyer.

the FDA approved the sale of rBGH milk to the public.. of course.' Monsanto rewarded the diligent public servant by appointing Michael Taylor to be Vice President of Monsanto for Public Policy after he left the FDA. had been placed in charge of GMO food policy within the government's principal food safety body. At the same time. such as data on birth defects in cattle or even possible symptoms in humans arising from consumption of GMO foods. raised the FDA standard by 100 times for the permissible level of antibiotics that farmers could put into milk. seemed the logic behind the perverse kind of "Shareholder value ueber Alles:' As FDA Biotechnology Coordinator James Maryansky remarked. Under the FDA rules. could be withheld from the public as "confidential business information:' Were it to leak out that Monsanto. His decision was not to label GMO foods. after a suitable amount of time had elapsed."12 A lawyer for Monsanto. and that would damage the full flowering of private enterprise. so the consumer could avoid undue anxiety about giving himself or his children exposure to cancerous . "we take care of our friends. it was unlabeled. Michael R~ Taylor. I I As one of its top officials. Taylor helped the FDA draw up guidelines to decide whether GMO foods should be labeled. it might be detrimental for the stock price of the company.WASHINGTON LAUNCHES THE GMO REVOLUTION 11 explanation. She single. honoring the adage. It was a club more than a little fraught with potential conflict of interest.:handedly cleared the way for a booming business for Monsanto's rBGH hormone. As a suitable postscript. at least. 13 FDA and Monsanto Milk the Public By 1994. This. "The FDA would not require things to be on the label just because a consumer might want to know them. Dow or other biotech companies were creating grotesque deformities in animals fed GMO foods. again under Taylor's guiding hand. the FDA ruled that risk-assessment data. A cozy club was emerging between private biotech companies and the government agencies that should be regulating them.

The action followed strong pressure from the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians. the US Pure Food and Drug Act was rewritten to allow a product that caused cancer in laboratory animals to be marketed for human consumption without a warning label. However. It was as simple as that. when the Canadian counterpart to the FDA. sometimes also called rBST or recombinant Bovine Somatotropin. rBGH was never tested in the long-term for (chronic) human health effects. A generally accepted principle in science holds that two years of testing is the minimal time for long-term health studies. He would never know. Monsanto had been very eager to break into the Canadian market with its rBGH. The short-term rat study was submitted by Monanto to the FDA but was never published. When Monsanto's Posilac caused leukemia and tumors in rats. The FDA refused to allow anyone outside the administration to review the raw data from this study. that a Monsanto official tried to bribe a Canadian health official sitting on the Government review committee with an offer of$I-2 million. according to a Canadian CBC television report. Health Canada. saying that publication would "irreparably harm" Monsanto. even to the p'oint. the US Government exerted strong pressure on Mexico and Canada also to approve rBGH. rBGH was tested for only 90 days on 30 rats. including evidence of lameness and reproductive problems. the FDA-Monsanto campaign got a nasty setback in January 1999. This linchpin study of cancer and BGH has never been subjected to scrutiny by the scientific community. Though Monsanto claimed that its rBGH was one of the most thoroughly examined drugs in US history. 14 Not content to feed GMO milk exclusively to its own unwary population. as part of an effort to expand Monsanto's rBGH market globally.12 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION agents or other surprises. which presented evidence of the adverse effects of rBGH milk. Monsanto has continued to refuse to allow open scientific peer review of the 90 day study. broke ranks with the US and issued a formal "notice of non-compliance" disapproving future Canadian sales of rBGH. to secure rBGH approval in Canada without .

from 1979 until 1989. the Codex Alimentarius Commissi<?n. . thus being directly involved in the evaluation process for almost five years. 16 This setback was not to daunt the persistent bureaucrats at the FDA. Richard Burroughs. Burroughs wrote the original protocols for animal safety studies and reviewed the data submitted by rBGH developers from their own safety studies. but also major risks especially of breast and prostate cancer in humans. From 1985 until the year he was fired. "Nature's most perfect food" was the dairy industry's slogan for milk. He reported seeing corporations dropping off sick cows from rBGH test trials and then manipulating data in such ways as to make health and safety problems "disappear. Burroughs headed the FDA's review of Monsanto's rBGH. Burroughs described a change in the FDA beginning in the mid-1980s. Americans were simply told that the EU was trying to hurt American cattle farmers by refusing imports of hormone-fed US beef. Americans were blissfully unaware of the dangers of drinking the milk they were encouraged to consume for better health."17 . Since GMO labeling had been forbidden by the FDA. Burroughs was faced with corporate represeritatives who wanted the FDA to ease strict safety testing protocols. a special European Commission independent committee of recognized experts concluded that rBGH. not only posed the above-named dangers. The insulted official reportedly asked. In a 1991 article in Eating Well magazine.ruled unanimously in favor of a 1993 European Union moratorium on the introduction of Monsanto's rBGH milk. the US media were respectfully quiet. for reviewing animal drugs such as rBGH. "Is that a bribe?" and the meeting ended. as reported in Canadian findings. With regard to reporting the UN decision and the negative Canadian conclusions. In August 1999. the United Nations Food Safety Agency. One concerned FDA scientist who refused to sit by idly was FDA Veterinarian Dr. or their friends at Monsanto. IS Moreover. who was responsible. Monsanto's rBGH was thus banned from the EU.WASHINGTON LAUNCHES THE GMO REVOLUTION 13 further studies.

and writing promotional pieces about rBGH in the agency's publication. calling them insufficient. Dr. Upon pressure by Monsanto. don't ask:' which meant. The FDA kept silent. the government does not ask:'20 That was little reassurance for the health and safety concerns of the population. As one former US Department of Agriculture official stated. Fox killed the story and fired Jane Akre and her husband Steve. "don't tell. Michael Hansen of Consumers Union noted that the FDA acted as an rBGH advocate by issuing news releases promoting rBGH. . FDA Consumer. he rejected a number of corporate-sponsored safety studies. as on the surface it appeared that the FDA and other relevant agencies were guarding their health interests in the new area of GMO foods. the guiding regulatory percent for genetically modified foods was. put together the remarkable story of the rBGH scandal including its serious health effects."19 With their ample financial resources. and in declarations to the press. Finally.ls In April 1998. the two won a jury award of $425. an influential US network owned by Rupert Murdoch. Monsanto continued to market rBGH milk unabated. the agency promoted the Monsanto Corporation's product before and after the drug's approval.14 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Burroughs challenged the agency's lenience and its changing role from guardian of public health to protector of corporate profits. making public statements praising the drug. he was fired for "incompetence. Fox Television and Monsanto took the case to a higher court on appeal and got the decision reversed on a legal technicality.000 damages and the Court found that Fox "acted intentionally and deliberately to falsify or distort the plaintiffs' news reporting on rBGH. in November 1989. In an August 2000 Florida state court trial. He criticized the FDA and its handling of rBGH in statements to Congressional investigators. In fact." The FDA failed to act on the evidence that rBGH was not safe. Within the FDA. "If the industry does not tell government what it knows about its GMOs. in testimonies to state legislatures. Few ever realized it however. two enterprising award-winning television journalists at Fox TV.

after FDA inspectors broke their silence by declaring having found unacceptable levels of contamination in rBGH.where top corporate persons got picked for prime government jobs where they could promote the corporation's private agenda inside the government. the practice worked in reverse. Washington was becoming infamous for what some called "revolving door government. It had also triggered collapsing milk prices. but also from farmers who realized that the 30% rise in national milk output from dairy herds had only served to create an even larger glut of unsold milk in a nation already in surplus. Many thought Monsanto would quietly discontinue production of the dangerous hormone. least of all evidence of danger to human health. Monsanto's Cozy Government Relations The relation between the US Government and giant GMO seed producers such as Monsanto. initially to 70% of its peak level. . risky new procedures which had the potential to affect the basic food supply of the country and of the entire planet. Not easily deterred by anything. The Government encouraged development of unregulated GMO crops as a strategic priority. It was quite another thing to open the market's floodgates to untested.WASHINGTON LAUNCHES THE GMO REVOLUTION 15 In January 2004. They had come under enormous pressure not only from citizens concerned about health consequences. long before it was at all clear whether such engineering of nature was at all desirable. Similarly. Monsanto announced a year later that they planned to increase the supply of Posilac again. Monsanto finally announced it would reduce the supply of Posilac by 50%." The latter referred to the common practice of major corporations to hire senior government officials directly from government service into top corporate posts where their government influence and connections would benefit the company. It was one thing for a government to support long-term laboratory research through science grants. as noted. Monsanto had moved on to corner the global market in seeds for the most important staples in the human and animal diets. By then. DuPont or Dow AgriSciences was not accidental. since the early years of the Reagan Presidency.

Jack Watson.D. Mickey Kantor. It is not possible to prove that this fact influenced the Committee's decision.D. Friedman. Michael A. The Committee killed the proposed labeling law. and Toxic Substances.16 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Few companies were more masterful at this game of the revolving door than Monsanto. a biotech cOll). Searle. They had won a total of $711. This pattern of revolving door conflicts of interest between top officials of government agencies responsible for food policy and their corporate sponsors. Linda J. left Government to take a seat on the Board of Monsanto.D. Former US Trade Representative and lawyer to Bill Clinton. former head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Presidents Nixon and Reagan. producer of GMO-based artificial sweetener and carcinogen. was once administrator of EPA's Office of Prevention. the 12 members of the Dairy Subcommittee of the House Agricultural committee were no strangers to Monsanto's campaign largesse. Aspartame. was once acting director of the FDA.pany which became a Monsanto subsidiary. Monsanto vice president of public affairs. which held the patent on Tamiflu. Searle. Monsanto had a special skill in placing its key people in relevant Government posts. That corporation was a major contributor to both Republican and Democratic national candidates. Rumsfeld had also been Chairman of California biotech company Gilead Science. Pesticides. Ruckelshaus. it evidently did not hurt Monsanto's case. George W. Ann Veneman. was chief of White House staff in the Carter Administration. Monsanto legal adviser. However. DuPont and the . was formerly an assistant to President Clinton for intergovernmental affairs. Monsanto also had on its board William D. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had been CEO of Monsanto subsidiary G.. Bush's Agriculture Secretary. Fisher. senior vice-president of clinical affairs for Monsanto's pharmaceutical division G. M.000 in Monsanto campaign finance. Monsanto's director of UK government affairs. During the controversy over the labeling of Monsanto's rBGH milk. such as Monsanto. Marcia Hale. came to Washington in 2001 from a job as director of Calgene. Dow.

had been in place at least . had the Rockefeller Foundation spent more than $100 million for the advance of the GMO revolution. It was no coincidence that the Rockefeller Foundation and Monsanto were talking about a global strategy for the genetic engineering of plants. A press conference in lat~ 1999 gave a hint as to the powerful interests standing behind public players. Not only. as if public and private interests were the same. since the time of the Reagan Administration. the President of an influential private tax-exempt foundation based in New York. against the warnings of countless scientists and even government officials responsible for public health regulation? The answer to those questions was therefor anyone willing to look. On October 4. The genetic revolution had been a Rockefeller Foundation project from the very beginning. That project was part of a global strategy that had been in development for decades. Dow and DuPont. Gordon Conway. . applauded the announcement by Monsanto that it agreed not to "commercialize" its controversial "terminator" seed genetics. as Conway reminded in his public remarks. 1999.WASHINGTON LAUNCHES THE GMO REVOLUTION 17 other agribusiness and biotech players. Unmistakable was the conclusion that the US Government was an essential catalyst for the "gene revolution" of GMO-altered food crops and their proliferation worldwide. In this they acted in concert with the corporate giant agrichemical firms such as Monsanto. 21 The organization was the Rockefeller Foundation. What could explain the extraordinary backing of no fewer than four US Presidents for the GMO agrichemical industry? What could explain why Bill Clinton put the very authority of his office on the line to demand that the British Prime Minister silence a critic of the genetic manipulation of plants? What could explain the extraordinary ability of firms such as Monsanto to get their way among government officials regardless of overwhelming evidence of potential health damage to the population? What could cause four Presidents to expose the health of their nation and the entire world to untold risks. But it was an answer so shocking that few dared to examine it.

such as the one dubbed "the Terminator. It was part of a far more ambitious plan which began in the era of the Vietnam War."22 Conway had gone to Monsanto some months before to warn the senior executives that they risked jeopardizing the entire GMO revolution and that a tactical retreat was needed to keep the broad project on track. This technology would block farmers in developing from saving their own seed for re-sowing. This technology would prevent farmers in developing countries from saving their own seed for re-sowing. It was part of a far more ambitious plan rooted in the crisis of the post-war dollar order which began in the era of the Vietnam War. 23 Terminator seeds had been designed to prevent the germination of harvested grains as seeds. 24 The involvement of the Rockefeller Foundation in Monsanto's corporate policy was not by chance. 25 The involvement of the Rockefeller Foundation in Monsanto's corporate policy was not by chance. The GMO project required that scientists should serve their agribusiness patrons. "We welcome this move as a first step toward ensuring that the fruits of plant biotechnology are made available to poor farmers in the developing world. . The development of a research project in Scotland was intended to send a strong signal to biologists around the world as to what happens when the results of GMO research contradict the interests of Monsanto and other GMO producers.18 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION At the 1999 press conference. and had engendered strong opposition in many quarters. "The Rockefeller Foundation supports the Monsanto Company's decision not to commercialize sterile seed technologies. Conway declared." He added.

Are GMOs Being Regulated or Not?. 10 September 2002. FDA Regulation Meant to Promote rBGH Milk Resulted in Antibiotic Resistance. pp. no.htrnl?recid= 1736. The Ecologist. In his book. 10.psrast.cropchoice.mercola.orglfdaiawstmore.org. 1997. who was responsible for biotechnology issues at the Food and Drug Administration from 1979 to 1994. in http://www. "Biotechnology Food: From the Lab to a Debacle". Cohen filed a Freedom of Information Act request .rff. Also. 14. 1228-1233.WASHINGTON LAUNCHES THE GMO REVOLUTION 19 Notes 1. New York Times. Robert P. Pregnancy. quoted in Julian Borger. 10. Miller. Ibid.cit. "Milk. told the New York Times: "In this area. Dr. http://www. . the Deadly Poison. The Guardian. Bio-deception: How the Food and Drug Administration is Misrepresenting the Facts about Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods .' Journal of the American Dietetic Association.htm. 25 January 2001. Robert . done in the United States. September/October 1998. 5. 12. "Revolving Doors: Monsanto and the Regulators".. Milk. Steering Committee. et ai.responsibletechnology.orglbghsalmonella. Druker drafted the statement in May 1998 as part of a lawsuit against the FDA to demand mandatory testing and labeling of GMO food. Taylor. December 2004.. 67-96. from text of banned FOX TV documentary. Got Hormones-The Controversial Milk Drug that Refuses to Die. "The Mystery in Your Milk. 7. "Dietary Changes. Steven M. 13. pp. in http://www.psrast. op. 8. Favorably Affect Bone Remodeling in Older Adults. quoted in Jane Akre & Steve Wilson. James Maryansky.htm. "Why Americans are Happy to Swallow the GM Food Experiment". Jeffrey Smith. NJ. as of 2007.com/leadstry66t7. October 1999. quoted in Eichenwald et ai. the u. cit. Argus Press. vol. Robert Collier. Cummings was a senior US Department of Agriculture official at the time. Henry Miller. Dr. Michael R.S May 2000...cohen.' in http://www." 4. in http://www. in Food Safety Research Consortium.s. 11. Quoted in Kurt Eichenwald et aI. 2. Claire Hope Cummings. http://www.coml 2001lmay/26/mystery_milk. Druker.htm. Cancer May Be Tied". government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do.htm. Eichenwald. Robert Cohen describes his efforts to obtain a copy of this unpublished study from the FDA. 'Reuters. 6. 20 February 1999. Jennifer Ferrara. 99. Heaney. both of which are not.orglfsrc/bios. 9. Inglewood Cliffs. 3. "Biography". op. 11 June 2003..

18. 18 August 1999.org!.20 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION for the study and it was denied. in http://www.biotechinfo. "Terminator' Seed Sterility Technology Dropped. 17. The Guardian. Press Release.org. Press Release. Based on the scant information that has been published about the weight gains of the rats during the 90-day study. PRNewswire. FDA Regulation Meant to Promote rBGH Milk Resulted in AntibioticResistance.£oxrBGHsuit. 4 October 1999. Kraft "Cheese?": Adulterated Food?-FDA: Don't Ask! Don't Tellf. "Pandora's Pantry". Rockefeller Foundation. "The Rockefeller Foundation and Plant Biotechnology". Hidden Danger in Your Milk?: Jury Verdict Overturned on Legal Technicality. But CBC stuck to its guns and ran the program. Mother Jones. January/February 2000.rockfound. The FDA and the courts agree that the public should never learn what happened to those rats fed BGH because it would "irreparably harm" Monsanto. 4 October 1999.mindfully. "Terminator" Seed Technology Dropped. 7 May 2001. Chicago. He then filed a lawsuit in federal court and again. 22. http://www. in http://www.org/Food/Kraft-CheeseAdulterated:htm. 23. 19. 21. "How Monsanto's Mind was Changed".html. 24 June 1999. Cohen believes that many or perhaps all of the rats got cancer. Dr. Rockefeller Foundation. Luoma. 20. http://www. The Agribusiness Examiner.com. http://www. . New York. John Vidal. John R.psrast. Monsanto's Genetically Modified Milk Ruled Unsafe by the United Nations. 2000. offering to pay as much as two million dollars under the condition that Monsanto receive approval to market rBGH in Canada without being required to submit data from any further studies or trials. In November 1994. According to journalists who worked on the documentary. lost. arguing through its lawyers that CBC had maliciously rigged the interviews. 24. 15. he appealed within the FDA and lost.net/gordon_conway. 9 October 1999. 5 May 2000. Monsanto tried to kill the show. Ibid. Gordon Conway in a speech to Directors of Monsanto. 16. Robert Cohen. the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) program The Fifth Estate televised a one-hour documentary reporting that Monsanto had tried to bribe Health Canada (Canada's equivalent to the FDA). RBGH Bulletin.

He had worked in the specialized field of biotechnology for more than 35 years.5 million. an event of enormous signifi~ cance for the future of the GMO project occurred in faraway Scotland. in Aberdeen. His mandate was to conduct long-term research on the possible effects of a GMO food diet on animals. Scotland's Office of Agriculture. the Rowett Research Institute. was no novice in genetic research. Pusztai. published a wealth of recognized scientific papers. With a budget of $1. 1 .itics s GM seeds were being commercially introduced into Argentine and North American fanning. just prior to Monsanto's mass commercial sales of GM soybean seeds to American and Argentine farmers. it was no small undertaking. an experienced scientist was making studies in a carefully controlled manner. Environment and Fisheries contracted the Rowett Research Institute to undertake a three-year comprehensive study under the direction of Dr. There. in a state-supported laboratory. In 1995. The scientist. Dr.CHAPTER 2 The Fox Guards the Hen-House A Science Bending the Knee to Pol. and was considered the world's leading expert on lectins and the genetic modification of plants. Arpad Pusztai.

wherein conclusions not surprisingly claimed that genetically-engineered food was completely healthy to consume. As he began his careful study. One group would be fed a diet of GM potatoes. The potatoes had been modified with a lectin which was supposed to act as a natural insecticide. given the enormous importance of the introduction of genetically modified organisms into the basic human and animal diet. Pusztai. preventing an aphid insect attack on the potato crops-or so went the genetically engineered potato maker's claim. A Bomb Falls on the GMO Project The Scottish government. Dr. mostly in test or field trials. it was a logical next step to prepare such sound regulatory controls. As the spread of GMO crops was in its earliest stages. Susan Bardocz. Pusitai was given the task of testing laboratory rats in several selected groups. Rowett and Dr. had jointly published two books on the subject of plant lectins. Pusztai knew that a wholly independent view was essential to any serious scientific evaluation. also a scientist at Rowett.22 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION The Scottish Agriculture Office wanted Rowett to establish guidelines for a scientific testing methodology to be used by Government regulatory authorities to conduct future risk assessments of GMO crops. The only other study of GM food effects at the time was the one sponsored by Monsanto. He was regarded by his peers as an impeccable researcher. the Pusztai research project was the very first independent scientific study on the safety of gene-modified food in the world. He himself was fully certain the study would confirm the safety of GM foods. More significant. on top of Pusztai's more than 270 scientific articles on his various research findings. That fact was astonishing. and a sound methodology than Dr. Pusztai believed they were about to verify a significant breakthrough in plant science . He and his wife. No better person could have been imagined to establish scientific credibility. Pusztai believed in the promise of GMO technology. and necessary to create confidence in such a major new development. in terms of what followed.

politics. science and GMO agribusiness. and demonstrated weaker immune systems. What he went on to say. "But. was alarming enough. after 110 days. was the markedly smaller brain size of GMO-fed rats compared with normal potatofed rats. "We are assured that this is absolutely safe. More alarming. The rats fed for more than 110 days on a diet of GM potatoes had marked changes to their development. They were significantly smaller in size and body weight than ordinary potato-fed control rats in the same experiment." He then went on to issue the following caveat to his millions of viewers. By late 1997. Pusztai was beginning to have doubts. We can eat it all the time.THE Fox GUARDS THE HEN-HoUSE 23 which could be of huge benefit to food production by eliminating need for added pesticides in potato planting. however. One of the genetically modified potatoes. We must eat it all the time. detonated the political equivalent of a hydrogen bomb across the world of biotechnology. however. made the rats less responsive to immune effects. What Dr. Pusztai told the world. who had cleared his TV appearance beforehand with the director of Rowett. was the fact that the GMO rats showed markedly smaller liver and heart sizes. Pusztai stated simply that. This later finding so alarmed Pusztai that he chose to leave it out when he was asked to present his findings on a UK Independent Television show in 1998. He stated. I would certainly not eat it until I see at ." Pusztai. We have to find guinea pigs in the laboratory. The most alarming finding from Pusztai's laboratory tests. There is no conceivable harm which can come to us. however. "the effect (of a diet of GM potatoes) was slight growth retardation and an effect on the immune system. had been told not to talk in detail about his experiments. He said later he feared unleashing panic among the population." Pusztai added a personal note: "If I had the choice. Arpad Pusztai did say when he was invited to talk briefly about his results on the popular lTV "World in Action" broadcast in August 1998. I find that it is very. very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs. actively working in the field..as a scientist looking at it.

He was forbidden to talk to members of his research team under threat oflegal action. Pusztai's concerns. Prof. Rowett. according to exhaustive research by UK journalist Andrew Rowell. He was effectively fired. the world was debating the sensational Pusztai comments. finding a flimsy fallback in the . later shifted its story. Philip James. was warm congratulations for the way Pusztai presented his work that day. stressing that "a range of carefully controlled studies underlie the basis of Dr. each contradicting the previous.24 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION least comparable scientific evidence which we are producing for our genetically modified potatoes:'2 Suddenly. The initial response from Pusztai's boss. settled on the story that Pusztai had simply "confused" the samples from the GMO rats with those from ordinary rats who had been fed a sample of potato known to be poisonous. under the threat of losing his pension. both of which Pusztai had survived as a young man growing up in Hungary. after several different press releases. Pusztai's colleagues began to defame his scientific repute. the Institute even issued a press release based on Pusztai's findings. His papers were seized and placed under lock. it was simply not true. Damage to organs and immune systems was bad enough. The Press claimed it was one of the w. Within 48 hours. who had herself been ~ respected Rowett researcher for more than 13 years. Pusztai was told not to ever speak to the press about his research.orst errors ever admitted by a major scientific institution. Moreover. But the leading UK gene scientist had also said he himself would not eat GMO food if he had a choice."3 That token support was to break radically. That was to be only the beginning of a defamation campaign worthy of Third Reich Germany or Stalinist Russia. However. Such a basic error for a scientist of Pusztai's seniority and proven competence was unheard of. His phone calls and e-mails were diverted. On James's decision. Rowett. as a later audit of Pusztai's work proved. along with his wife. The team was dispersed. the 68-year-old researcher was told his cohtract would not be renewed.

The Pusztai debate threatened the very future of a hugely profitable GMO agribusiness for UK companies. Furthermore. Research by Andrew Rowell revealed that the Royal Society's statements and the British House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee's similar condemnation issued on the same day. It was later revealed by a peer review that the latter had drawn its conclusions from incomplete data. execution and analysis and that no conclusions should be drawn from it. by February 1999.THE Fox GUARDS THE HEN-HoUSE 25 claim that Pusztai had not carried out the long-term tests needed to prove the results. were the result of concerted pressure on those two bodies by the Blair Government. James and Rowett Institute to justify the firing and defaming of Pusztai were soon forgotten."4 Coming from the 300-year-old renowned institution. as other scientists and government ministers jumped into the frenzy to discredit Pusztai. that statement was a heavy blow to Pusztai's credibility. some 30 leading scientists from l3 countries had signed an open letter supporting Pusztai. and one which risked tarnishing the credibility of the Royal Society itself. Blair. it refused to release the names of its reviewers. 5 . But the Royal Society's remarks on Pusztai's work were also recognizable as a political smear. triggering a whole new round of controversy over the safety of GMO crops and the Pusztai findings. May 18. the Society issued a public statement claiming that Pusztai's research had been "flawed in many aspects of design. at that point a dominant voice in the UK. In June 1999. Clinton and "Political" Science Within days of the Guardian piece. It announced its decision to review the evidence of Pusztai. leading some critics to attack the Society's methods as reminiscent of the medieval Star Chamber. The letter was published in the London Guardian. In defiance of these attacks. But the clumsy efforts of Prof. no less august an institution than the British Royal Society entered the fray. . The Blair Government had indeed set up a secret Biotechnology Presentation Group to launch a propaganda campaign to counter the anti-GMO media.

that GMO agribusiness was the wave of the future."6 Public documents later revealed that the Blair Cabinet was itself split over the GMO safety issue and that some members advised further study of potential GMO health risks. Blair had made clear in no uncertain terms that Pusztai had to be silenced. His findings revealed the dark truth about of the politics of GMO crops. and Cunningham was placed in charge of the Government's common line on GMO crops. Philip James. It took five years and several heart attacks. he added. Prof. They were silenced. fearing the loss of state funding and worse. Several former colleagues at Rowett. "The Royal Society this week convincingly dismissed as wholly misleading the results of some recent research into potatoes. before the near-ruined Pusztai was able to piece together the details of what had taken place in those 48 hours following his first TV appearance in 1998. stood in the House of Commons to declare. Bill Clinton. and the misinterpretation of it-There's no evidence to suggest that any GM foods on sale in this country are harmful:' Making his message on behalf of the Blair Cabinet unmistakable. What could possibly explain such a dramatic turnaround on the part of James and the Rowett Institute? As it turned out. had received two direct phone calls from Prime Minister Tony Blair. Clinton. Pusztai also learned that Blair had initially received an alarmed phone call from the President. "Biotechnology is an important and exciting area of scientific advance that offers enormous opportunities for improving our quality of life. of the United States. the Biotechnology Presentation Group. Blair was convinced by his close friend and political adviser. proceeded to destroy his former colleague. a huge-and growing-multibillion dollar industry in which Blair . who had retired and were thus protected from possibly losing their jobs. Jack Cunningham. the answer was political pressure.26 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Three days after the coordinated attacks on Pusztai's scientific integrity from the Royal Society and the Select Committee. privately confirmed to Pusztai that Rowett's director. James. But the chain did not stop at Tony Blair. Blair's so-called "Cabinet Enforcer:' Dr.

? The Clinton Administration was in the midst of spending billions to promote GMO crops as the technology of a future biotech revolution." Blair then spoke to Rowett's director. Dr. nor clearly was Clinton's good friend Blair. banned from speaking about his research and talking to his former colleagues. What is more.THE Fox GUARDS THE HEN-HoUSE 27 could offer British pharmaceutical and biotech giants a leading role. had been able to mobilize the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain on behalf of its private interests. If it was true." And it was well-known in the UK that Clinton had initially won Blair over to the promise of GM plants as the pathway towards a new agro-industrial revolution. But it also had enormous implications for the proliferation of GMO crops worldwide. Orskov's information was a bombshell. Twenty four hours later. who had in the meantime left the institute. 9 . This carried somber implications for the future of academic freedom and independent science. The final piece of the puzzle fell into place for Pusztai. the stocks of biotech GM companies were soaring on the Wall Street stock exchange. "the decade of the successful commercialization of agricultural biotechnology products. 8 Monsanto had spoken with Clinton. told Pusztai that senior Rowett colleagues had informed him that the initial phone call behind his 'dismissal came from Monsanto. A simple phone call by Monsanto could destroy the credibility of one of the world's leading independent scientists. Professor Robert Orskov. it meant that a private corporation. through a simple phone call. Clinton was not about to have some scientist in Scotland sabotage his project." By the late 1990's. a leading nutrition scientist with a 33-year career at Rowetl. A Clinton White House senior staff member stated at the time that their goal was to make the 1990's. Arpad Pusztai was out on the street. who in turn had directly spoken to Blair about the "Pusztai problem. Orskov. Philip James. Blair had made the promotion of GMO a cornerstone of his successful 1997 election campaign to "Re~brand Britain. thanks to further information from former colleague.

To cement the ties further between the Blair government and leading biotech companies. Prof. but impartial in the issue of GMO science he definitely was not. Lord Sainsbury was the leading financial contributor to Tony Blair's "New Labour" party in the 1997 elections. Peter Lachmannn. and was aggressively pro-GMO. who told him that his job might be at risk should he decide to publish the Pusztai study. Lachmann was many things. The Lancet editor. The Lancet. later said he had received · a "threatening" phone call from a senior person at the Royal Society. Lachmann was a scientific consultant for a p'rivate biotech company. Dr. former Vice President of the Society. For his largesse. The magazine was highly respected for its scientific independence and integrity. Rebecca Bowden.28 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION A Not-so-ethical Royal Society Joins the Attack With his scientific reputation already severely damaged. Richard Horton. the PR firm director who successfully . who publicly called for scientific "independence" in his attack on Pusztai. though he denied having threatened him. was himself hardly an impartial judge of the GMO issue. to secure the publication of his and his colleague's research in the respected British scientific journal. in October 1999. His science credentials were minimal but he was a major shareholder in two GMO biotech companies. and before publication. Sainsbury had been given a Cabinet post as Blair's Science Minister. the article was submitted to a six-person scientific review panel. later admitted to phoning Horton about the Pusztai paper. Geron Biomed. The unit was headed by Dr. Diatech and Innotech. a former Blair environment ministry official who was openly pro-GM 0. Adprotech. Pusztai finally managed. SmithKleinBeecham. Investigative journalists from the Guardian newspaper discovered that the Royal Society had set up a special "rebuttal unit" to push a pro-GM line and discredit opposing scientists and organizations.10 The paper discovered that Lachmann. He was also a member of the scientific advisory board of the GMO pharmaceutical giant. doing animal cloning similar to Dolly the Sheep. passing with 4 votes in favor. and was a non-executive director of the agri-biotech firm.

senior academic scientist at the Open University and later Director of the Institute of Science in Society. the Blair government ordered a three~year study to be carried out by a private firm. whose pressure eventually forced Pusztai's co-author. Dr. 11 Science in the Corporate Interest . In fact. to leave his position at the University of Aberdeen. Mae-Wan Ho. designed to demonstrate which GMO seeds might safely be included on the National List of Seeds. was one among several cases of suppression of independent research or of direct manipulation of research data proving the potentially negative effects ofGMO foods on human or animal health.. Following the publication of Pusztai's article. Internal documents from the UK Ministry of Agriculture were later obtained by the London Observer newspaper. Prof. Stanley Ewen. the Ministry went on to propose that a variety of GMO corn be certified. Good Relations David Hill. Shedding more doubt on the self-proclaimed scientific neutrality of the Royal Society." Far from causing the Ministry of Agriculture to suspend the tests and fire the employee. and revealed that some strange science was at work in the tests. the standard list of seeds farmers may buy.THE Fox GUARDS THE HEN-HoUSE 29 ran Blair's 1997 and 2001 election campaigns. was the fact that despite its public pronouncements on Pusztai's "flawed" research. the Society never went on to conduct a "non-flawed" version of the important study. as devastating as it threatened to be to the entire GMO project. The Pusztai case. At least one researcher at the Grainseed firm manipulated scientific data to "make certain seeds in the trials appear to perform better than they really did. This suggested that their interests lay perhaps in something else than scientific rectitude. also ran the PR for Monsanto in the UK. Mae-Wan Ho had been a Fellow of the National . this practice proved to be the rule.. In 2000. 12 In another example of British state intrusion in academic freedom and scientific integrity. Grainseed. The Lancet was severely attacked by the Royal Society and the biotechnology industry. was pressured by her university into taking early retirement.

she served on an international Independent Science Panel on GM plants. Dr. entitled. had testified before the UN and World Bank on issues of bioscience. As Science Minister. 14 In March 2003. It is uncontrollable and unreliable. Many institutes doing similar research into GMO foods. be sued for breach of contract or face a court injunction. Her "mistake" was that she was too outspoken against the dangers of GMO foods. the UK's leading biotechnology institute. and was a recognized expert on GMO science. Under the Government's Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council code (BBSRC). could face dismissal. the process is not at all precise. the Blair government put together a new code of conduct. Brian John submitted a memorandum to the British journal. any employee of a state-funded research institute who dared to speak out on his findings into GMO plants. with entirely unpredictable consequences!' That was more than enough for the GMO lobby to pressure her into "retirement. . while public interest groups such as the Country Landowners' Association were kept OUt.30 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Genetics Foundation in the US. GM Science Review. and typically ends up damaging and scrambling the host genome. Lord Sainsbury saw to it that the BBSRC got a major increase in government funding in order to carry out its biotech police work of suppressing scientific dissent. where she spoke out against the slipshod scientific claims being made about GMO safety. had received major financial backing from GMO biotechnology giants such as Zeneca and Lord Sainsbury personally. The board of the BBSRC was made up of representatives oflarge multinationals with a vested interest in the research results." 13 To protect the so-called integrity of state-funded research into the safety of GMO foods and crops. a rare case of dissent took place in the Blair government lobby against allowing the free introduction of virtually untested GMO products into the UK diet. such as the John Innes Centre's Sainsbury Laboratory. She warned that genetic modification was entirely unlike normal plant or animal breeding. She stated. In 2003. had published widely on genetics. "Contrary to what you are told by the pro-GM scientists.

the response was the French Revolution's-"Off with his head. was in charge of his Ministry's three-year study of GMO plants and their effects on the environment."16 Pusztai's research at the Rowett Institute was one of the first and last in the UK to involve live animal research.. The US GMO campaign of the 1980's and 1990's however had roots in policies going decades back. and none of them so far as I can see. either from Government sources or directly from the biotech industry themselves. Meacher. For this we have to thank corporate ownership of science. involves feeding trials on humans. In June 2003. in which "inconvenient research simply never sees the light of day:' He added. the cradle of the GMO revolution in world agriculture. Openly critical of the prevailing research on GMO crops. was way ahead of the game in terms of controlling the agenda and the debate."15 Dr." John stated. "The prevention of academic fraud is one matter." As determined the Blair government was in its support of the GMO revolution.. Its first public traces were found during the . John went on to critique sharply the Royal Society in the area of GMO science. Bush's war in Iraq. Michael Meacher. The United States. The Blair government was determined not to repeat that mistake. the suppression of uncomfortable research results is quite another:' John further pointed out that the International Life Sciences Institute Bibliography on GMO safety investigations was overwhelmingly biased towards pro-GMO papers. "There is no balance in the GM research field or in the peer-review process or in the publication process.. "Very few of them involve genuine GM feeding trials involving animals. Meacher was becoming an embarrassment to the genetic revolution. Scientific integrity is one loser.THE Fox GUARDS THE HEN-HoUSE 31 "On the Corruption of GM Science. later openly opposing UK involvement in Iraq. and the public interest is another. or at least this branch of it . its efforts paled in comparison to those of its closest ally across the Atlantic. amid the furor in the British House of Commons over the decision to back George W. Meacher had called on the Blair government to make far more thorough tests before releasing GMO crops for general use. As Mr. Tony Blair sacked his Environment Minister.

. Henry Kissinger.32 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Vietnam War era of the late 1960's and into the second Nixon Presidency. was to playa decisive role in that early period. He had introduced the idea of using "food as a weapon" into United States foreign policy. The "food weapon" was subsequently expanded into a far-reaching US policy doctrine. a Rockefeller protege.

Brave New World of Zero Risk: Covert Strategy in British Science Policy. Andrew W.gov/wcomp/. Blair's comments during his meeting with Clinton then were:" . the Gatsby Charitable Foundation. asked for an assurance from the European Commission "that any GMOs be adequately tested for any effects that might be triggered by their consumption in animals or humans".publications.ac. Ibid. Jack Cunningham. p. Genetically Modified Crops: the Ethical and Social Issues. press comment. Mellon Foundation. in http://www.. but people tell me whose opinions I respect that this whole science of biotechnology is perhaps going to be. The Royal Society itself had extensive ties to the corporate sponsorship of industrial biotech firms such as Aventis Foundation.--I mean. Esso UK pic. "The Sinister Sacking of the World's Leading GM Expert-and the Trail that Leads to Tony Blair and the White House". pp.. 1. London. " 8. 7 July 2003. for the first half of the 21st century what information technology was to the last half of the 20th century. 4. pp. Remarks Prior to Discussions With Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom and an Exchange With Reporters in OkinawaTranscript. And therefore. 7. 21 May 1999. 2. in http://www.uklpa/cmI99899/ cmhansrd/vo990S211debtext/90S21-07. In addition. Ref: 11199.htm. Walker. quoted in Andrew Rowell. Minister for the Cabinet Office. published on 10 August 1998.parliament." A second press release from the Chairman of the Institute's governing body. Review of Data on Possible Toxicity of GM Potatoes. The Royal Society. . it's particularly important.uk. the same day as the lTV's World in Action TV interview with Pusztai. Tony Blair. S. "The testing of modified products with implanted genes needs to be thoroughly carried out in the gut of animals if unknown disasters are to be avoided.Pusztai.. 23 June 2007. 31 July 2000. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents.royalsoc. cited in Martin J. in http://www. Slingshot ~ublications. Statement to House of Commons.173-193. Astra-Zeneca pic. Author's interview with Dr. I'm not an expert on it. BP pic. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 6. The exact words were "the rats had slightly stunted growth when tested after 110 days of feeding and the response of their lymphocytes to mitogenic stimuli was about half that of controls. June 1999. 140-141.. 3.THE Fox GUARDS THE HEN-HoUSE 33 Notes 1. The Daily Mail.. Wellcome Trust.gpoaccess. 2005. Robert Orskov. especially for a country like Britain that is a leader in this science of biotechnology .' cited in Alan Ryan et al. this whole science of biotechnology is going-.

. "Silent Science". 1999. in 2004. 16 October 1999. 22 October 1998.freenetpages.htm. uklgmoarchive. It had been founded in 2002 to deepen debate on the issue of GMO plants. Don't Worry.com/scigag. BSE and Foot and Mouth.dk!tcbh/Pusztai. 12. The Guardian. "Revealed: GM Firm Faked Test Figures. 8 April 2004. Subsequent to Pusztai's firing. 11.34 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION 9. Brian John. 1 November 1999. August/September 1999.ku. Andrew Rowell.PusztailRoyalSoc!Pusztai ." The Observer. in http://www.. "Pro-GM Scientist 'Threatened Editor". 2000. Despite the pressure. Scientists Gagged on GM Foods by Public Funding Body with Big Links to Industry. in Captive State: The Corporate Takeover of Britain. who became senior associate professor at the University of Copenhagen. curiously enough. . "On the Corruption of GM Science".. C. Anthony Barnett. Dr. Letter from Arpad Pusztai to the Royal Society dated 12/05/1999. Arpad Pusztai. it's Safe to Eat: The True Story of GM food. 10. "Effect of Diets Containing Genetically Modified Potatoes Expressing Galanthus Nivalis Lectin on Rat Small Intestine': The Lancet.co.tripod.rowett. London. Submission to the GM Science Review. Geoffrey Lean. and Rowell. 14. Bog-Hansen. 15. http://www. Anastasia Stephens. The same site reproduces the entire Pusztai 1998 analysis of the GMO potato experiments with rats. Mae-Wan Ho continued to be one of the few scientists to speak out on the dangers of GMO plants.uklhp/A. cit. See http://plab. They rejected the conclusions of the Review Committee and found that his research was of good quality and defended his conclusions. GM-FREE magazine. T. The Independent. "Why I Cannot Remain Silent". 3 October 1999. Ibid. "Expert on GM Danger Vindicated". Dr. 16. SOAEFD Flexible Fund Project RO 818: Report of Project Coordinatoron Data Produced at the Rowett Research Institute (RR!). "Puncturing the GM Myths': The Evening Standard. A detailed scientific defense of Pusztai's work was given by former colleague. Their report was ignored in media and government circles. 2003. Stanley Ewen and Arpad Pusztai. Norfolk Genetic Information Network. 16 April 2000.ac. The official Rowett Institute version of the Pusztai events is on http://www. " op. "The Sinister Sacking . htm.ngin. 20 March 2003. provides a personal account of the scientific events. Laurie Flynn and Michael Sean. For a thorough account of the witchhunt against Pusztai: George Monbiot. Arpad Pusztai. London. 13. he sent the research protocols to 24 independent scientists in different countries. The UK Government closed the journal.. press release. Pan Books.

PART II The Rockefeller Plan .


and enraged rebellious soldiers "fragging" or killing their company commanders in the field. For the next six years. Hundreds of thousands of American students were marching on Washington in protest against a war which seemed utterly senseless. By 1969. It was the first time its post-war superiority was being eclipsed by newer and more efficient industries in Western Europe and Japan. Most Americans.CHAPTER 3 "Tricky" Dick Nixon and Trickier Rockefellers W America's Vietnam Paradigm Shift hen Richard Nixon stepped into the White House as President in January 1969. A very select few saw the crisis as a long-awaited opportunity. the loss of the war in Vietnam. In those days the Pentagon still allowed the press to photograph the returning dead. however. America's youth were being brought back home in body bags by the thousands. as Nixon took . Nixon was to preside over the first major military defeat ever suffered by the United States. Morale among young Army draftee soldiers in Vietnam had collapsed to an all-time low. with drug addiction rampant among GI's. the United States of America was in a deep crisis. The US economy was in severe shock. did not.

had become obsolescent compared with the modern new post-war industry in Western Europe and Japan. along with a far more expensive petroleum. During the same IS-year period.000%. Corporate America faced severe recession and its banks were hard pressed to find profitable areas for lending. as it was about to be renamed. US agribusiness. problems which led to bold new searches among the US establishment and its wealthiest families. debt began to grow at an explosive rate in every corner of the US economy. and fast. It was the beginning of significant American corporate multi-nationalism. It was a paradigm shift. the precursor to the later phenomenon of globalization. Little wonder there was growing skepticism abroad that the US dollar would continue to hold its value against gold. The post-war profit rate of American corporations. American industry was rusting as its factories. consumer debt and local government debt had risen by a combined 300%. was now in steady decline. Within a quarter century after the 1944 creation of the Bretton Woods monetary system. the establishment's version of an American Century dominating world affairs was rapidly running up against fundamental problems. the United States was by every traditional measure in a deep economic crisis. most of which were built before and during the war. I . American corporations found that they could make higher . was to become a vital pillar of a new American economic domination by the 1960's. which had peaked in 1965. the debt of the US Government had risen by an even more impressive 1. US jobs were disappearing in traditional domestic industries. Food or. and the Rust Belt was spreading across once-thriving steel producing regions. for new areas of profit. corporate debt. By 1974.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION office. From 1960 to 1974. the US dollar itself had entered a terminal crisis as foreign central banks demanded gold instead of paper dollars for their growing trade surpluses with the United States. The post-war pillar of American industrial superiority was vanishing.profits by going abroad and buying foreign companies. home mortgage debt. By the early 1970's.

ran the family's foundation along with numerous other tax-exempt entities such as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. a man who desperately wanted to be President if he could. a losing victim of power struggles within the US establishment. No figure had played a more decisive role in those power plays than former New York Governor. The family and its various foundations dominated think-tanks."TRICKY" DICK NIXON AND TRICKIER ROCKEFELLERS 39 The Vietnam War and its divisive sodal impact were to last until the humiliating resignation of Nixon in August 1974. Laurance. In 1973. hand~ picked friends of the Rockefeller brothers from Europe. In the 1960's the Rockefellers were at the power center of the US establishment. recruited from Harvard in the late 1950's to work for a new Rockefeller Foundation projecL 2 David Rockefeller's "Crisis of Democracy" One response by the US establishment inner-circles to the late1960's crisis in the American hegemony. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had been their hand-picked protege. following a meeting of some 300 influential. The family's power center was the exclusive organization created in the aftermath of World War I. was a decision to create a new division of the global economic spoils. and the group of influential political and business figures around the Rockefeller family. David Rockefeller expanded the influence of his establishment friends and founded a powerful new global policy . the New York Council on Foreign Relations. The most influential persons were David and Nelson Rockefeller. Rockefeller. At the beginning of the crisis-torn 1970's. for the first time inviting Japan into the "rich-mens' club". academia. To reach that goal in the midst of Nixon's crisis was in fact the main aim of Nelson Rockefeller. together with his brothers David. and Winthrop. government and private business in the 1960's in a manner no other single family in United States his ~ tory had managed to then. certain influential persons within the American establishment had clearly decided a drastic shift in direction of US global policy was in order. North America and Japan. Nelson Rockefeller. John.

later named by President Jimmy Carter as Federal Reserve chairman. Brzezinski was then Professor at Columbia University's Russian Studies Center. "the ruling elite:' stating bluntly that. many of them business partners of the Rockefellers. published in 1970. Bush. economic and political weight was ." . In this little-known book.W. along with George H. The idea of a new.. His personal views were not exactly the stuff of traditional American democracy and liberty. Brzezinski had just written a book where he proposed the idea of consolidation of American corporate and banking influence worldwide via a series of regular closed-door policy meetings between the select business elites of Europe. and Alan Greenspan. Zbigniew Brzezinski. whose combined financial. but also Japan for the first time. incorporating not only Western European policy elites. The "triangle" included North America. Europe and now. Among the 1973 founding members of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission were Zbigniew Brzezinski. "Society would be dominated by an elite . Paul Volcker. a recipient of generous Rockefeller Foundation funding.40 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION circle. and a Georgia Governor and peanut farmer. grew from talks between David Rockefeller and his Maine neighbor. laid the basis of a new global strategy for a network of interlinked international elites. then a Wall Street investment banker. the Trilateral Commission. James Earl "Jimmy" Carter. Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era. Japan.. a private elite organization. It was no small-time operation. North America and Japan. The Trilateral Commission. Brzezinski referred to the significant policy voices in the United States as. top organization similar to the US Council on Foreign Relations. [which] would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control. Brzezinski was chosen by David Rockefeller to be the first Executive Director for Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission.

The 1975 Huntington report was titled: "The Crisis of Democracy.. among other things. which laid the basis for the later Bush Administration War on Terror." One of the first policy papers issued by David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission group was drafted by Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington. government.reds of thousands of ordinary American citizens had begun to protest their government's policies...."TRICKY" DICK NIXON AND TRICKIER ROCKEFELLERS 41 unparalleled. Its ambition was to create what Trilateral member George H. . subject to the pressures of an unpredictable popular mood. This was hardly the song of "America.W. attributes of . was the fact that hund. " ."3 For Huntington and David Rockefeller's establishment associates at the Trilateral Commission."4 The unreliable nature of democratic governments. "The effective operation of a democratic political system usually requires some measure of apathy and non-involvement on the part of some individuals and groups. or at least its power elite.. privatizing public enterprise and deregulating industry. Huntington declared by an "excess of democracy:' The unruly "natives" were clearly getting too "restless" for the elite circles of the establishment around Huntington and David Rockefeller. only demonstrated for these circles around Huntington and David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission the wisdom of. and a Trilateral Commission founding member. America. The movement to deregulate and privatize government services actually began under President Jimmy Carter. Drastic situations required drastic measures. the "crisis:' however.. Huntington went on to warn. inescapable . are . secrecy and deception . was threatened.. a hand-picked David Rockefeller candidate.." He also insisted that. The Trilateral group laid the foundation of what by the 1990's came to be called "globalization. the Beautiful:' The document was an alarm call from the US power establishment and its wealthy patrons. Bush later called a "new world order:' constructed on the designs of Rockefeller and kindred wealthy interests. the person who was to draft a controversial "Clash of Civilizations" thesis in the mid-1990's.

5 Food had played a strategic.42 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Kissinger and Food Politics Henry Kissinger was moving to take complete control over the US foreign policy apparatus by 1973. you control nations. the agriculture weapon was used by Washington more as a dub to hit other countries . or more accurately. Often Washington daimed its food exports subsidies were tied to domestic pressure from its farmers. Kissinger was to make food a centerpiece of his diplomacy along with oil geopolitics. Initially. but it served to cover the true situation. that American agriculture was in the process of being transformed from family-run small farms to global agribusiness · concerns. If you control food. This was far from the real reason. in a process whose daunting scope was perhaps its best deception. very powerful private cirdes." By the early 1970's. which took place at the same time that Henry Kissinger's "shuttle diplomacy" triggered the OPEC 400% increase in world oil prices.Starting in the 1970's. Washington. along with domination of world oil markets and non-communist world defense sales. Henry Kissinger reportedly dedared to one journalist at the time. The defining event for the emergence of a new US food policy was a world food crisis in 1973. there was a major shift in food policy. . albeit less central role in post-war US foreign policy with the onset of the Cold War. The combination of a drastic energy price shock and a global food shortage for grain staples. It was masked under the rhetoric of programs with positive sounding names. Domination of global agriculture trade was to be one of the central pillars of post-war Washington policy. "If you control oil. And as both Secretary of State and the President's National Security Adviser. you control people. was the breeding ground for a significant new Washington policy turn. induding the Rockefeller family.L. such as Food for Peace (P. 480).. were about to try to control both. This redirection was a precursor to the agro-chemical cartels of the 1970's. The turn was wrapped in "national security" secrecy.

over the world food supply and." The Soviet grain sale was so large that it depleted world reserves and allowed the trading companies to raise wheat and rice prices by 70% and more in a matter of months. China. The second theme was how to deal with sudden changes in world food supply and rises in prices. The first was supposedly alarming population growth in the context of world food shortages. The "Great Grain Robbery" As Secretary of State. largely on the initiative of the United States. severe drought had cut the grain harvests in India. global food prices. hence. not to its usual Government reserves. A convenient if unintended consequence of the food crisis. in the months before the Rome Food Conference. Wheat went from $65 a ton to $110 a ton. That was part of the Kissinger plan. At the same time. . a one-sided formulation of the problem. Kissinger did this through his role in negotiating huge US grain sales to the Soviet Union in exchange fot Russian oil."TRICKY" DICK NIXON AND TRICKIER ROCKEFELLERS 43 In 1974 the United Nations held a major UN World Food Conference in Rome. to sell Russia the needed grain. the United States. The amounts were so huge that Washington turned to the private grain traders like Cargill. The Rome conference discussed two main themes. Soybean prices doubled. The Soviets agreed to buy an unprecedented 30 million tons of grain from the United States under the Kissinger deal. It was during this time that a new alliance grew up between private US-based grain trading companies and the US Government. traditionally the domain of the US Department of Agriculture. That alliance laid the ground for the later gene revolution. "Agriculture policy is too important to be left in the hands of the Agriculture Department. Prices for oil and grains were both rising on international markets at annual rates of 300 to 400% at that time. As an aide to Kissinger explained at the time. was a strategic increase in the geopolitical power of the world's largest food surplus producer. Henry Kissinger had made an internal power play to control US agriculture policy. Indonesia.

the wartime practice of deciding which war-wounded . Bunge and Continental Grain. The United States was the world's only major surplus supplier of wheat and other agriculture commodities. a friend of agribusiness. a shock Kissinger had more than a little to do with from behind the scenes. It marked a major shift for Washington agriculture export policy. The Secretary of Agriculture was Earl Lauer Butz. Kissinger's new food diplomacy created a global agriculture market for the first time. The world was desperate for imported grain and Washington was preparing to take advantage of that desperation to radically change world food markets and food trade. Kissinger had negotiated the Soviet sale with the enticement of generous US Export-Import Bank credits and other subsidies. In 1974 the world was reeling under the shock of the 400% increase in world oil prices.44 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Bangladesh. 1974. least of all. The Soviet grain harvest had been devastated through crop failure and other problems. Archer Daniels Midland. who emerged as true global agribusiness giants. there was a catastrophic world harvest failure.? During this period.for power and control over whole areas of the planet was not lost on the US establishment. and who later was convicted for tax evasion. not on Kissinger. explaining why they were in favor of triage. a racist whose remarks about blacks cost him his job. an avid promoter of population control. as world oil prices were going through the roof. This potential. can survive and which left to die: . 6 The big winners were the US-based grain traders such as Cargill. Time magazine on November 11. Kissinger was both Secretary of State and National Security Adviser to the President in early 1974. The deal was called the "great grain robbery" in reference to the overly friendly terms of sale to Moscow and the low price that year paid to US farmers for the same grain. Australia and other countries. concluded a special report on the world food crisis.

. all of them American. "Food is a weapon. "When in Rome . stated atthe time. The denial of food-famine-was.. In reality a reserve in private hands is no reserve at all. yet the grain reserve was reduced to 25 million metric tons. It is now one of the principal tools in our negotiating kit. In 1975 there was estimated to be a 27-day reserve after exceptionally large grain harvests... As Earl Butz told Time. but it is perhaps the only kind that can have any long-range impact. "Private traders are in business to turn investments into profit as rapidly as possible . This may be a brutal policy. If the US decides that the grant would simply go down the drain as a mere palliative because the recipient country wa$ doing little to improve its food distribution or start a population control program.. In 1972. The virtual depletion of world food stocks prompted the 1974 UN World Food Conference meeting in Rome.. . . there were 209 million metric tons of grain.Washington may feel no obligation to help countries that consistently and strongly oppose it."TRICKY" DICK NIXON AND TRICKIER ROCKEFELLERS 45 In the West. when the world suffered an exceptionally poor harvest. It is indeed precisely the same market mechanism which has produced the situation we face today. " During the Cold War. in world reserve. His bid against Nixon for the Presidency in 1972 was doomed to be a disastrous defeat for traditional elements in the ."8 Providing food. George McGovern. there is increasing talk of triage .1974 there were record grain crops worldwide.. no help would be sent. In . or 37 days. 9 The problem was that the grain was there. Washington consistently opposed the creation of internationally held grain reserves.. This was the element that Kissinger had in mind when he spoke of food as a weapon. but it was in the hands of a handful of giant grain trading companies. A triage approach could also demand political concessions . chairman of the Senate Committee on Human Nutrition. however. some 66 days' worth. was not to be the real weapon."l0 McGovern was not appreciated by the US establishment for such comments.

. or float. No one group played a more decisive role in that reshaping of global agriculture during the next two decades than the Rockefeller interests and the Rockefeller Foundation. In August 1971. The United States was about to reorganize the global food market along private corporate lines. has been directly proportional to the increase of hunger and scarcity. Cook Industries Inc. Pennsylvania's Secretary of Agriculture. had gone to Rome in 1974 to plead for a sensible international food policy.. I I This connection between Washington and the grain giants was the heart of Kissinger's food weapon. where plants will be built and investments made. Bunge Company and Archer-Daniel Midland.. The trading giants were deliberately manipulating available grain supply to hike prices. Dreyfus. He pointed out that 95 per cent of all grain reserves in the world at the time were under the control of six multinational agribusiness corporations-Cargill Grain Company. only the grain giants like Cargill and Continental Grain knew what they had. James McHale. referring to the Big Six. He let it devalue in a freefall. laying the background for the later "Gene Revolution" of the 1990's. the quantities of agricultural products to be bought. Jean Pierre Laviec of the International Union of Food Workers said in a statement released at the Rome Food Conference. as it was called. This was part of a strategy which . Nixon had taken the dollar off the gold exchange standard of the 1944 Bretton Woods monetary system. The growth rate of agribusiness has risen during the last ten years and .SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Democratic Party."12 What was to come in the following ten years and more would far surpass what Laviec warned of in 1974. "They decide the quantities of vital inputs to be produced. Because the US government required no accurate grain reporting. All of them were American-based companies. Continental Grain Company. Nixon's Agriculture Export Strategy The emergence of a US-dominated global market in grain and agriculture commodities was part of a long-term US strategy which began in the early 1970's under Richard Nixon.

told a National Grain and Feed Association convention in New Orleans. "The fundamental problem with farm policy goes back nearly 50 years to the belief that the best way to protect farm income is to link it to price . the family farmer had to get out of the way and let the new giant agribusiness conglomerates dominate." Washington was out to dismantle the European Common Agriculture Policy.." Pearce ensured that the Williams report focused on how to expand US food exports. Cargill's Pearce argued that American agriculture had unique advantages of scale and efficiency. Countries trying to defend their own farmers such as the European Economic Community. which made it the natural contender for world export leader. This policy shift. with rank of Ambassador. .' was to have fateful consequences over the following three decades. He had been one of the chief policy members of the President's Commission on International Trade and Investment Policy. Cargill Vice Chairman. by his argument. Some years later. Continental Grain."TRICKY" DICK NIXON AND TRICKIER ROCKEFELLERS 47 included making US grain exports strategically competitive in Europe and around the world. the backbone of France's post-war political stability. diversification of income sources.. Archer Daniels Midland were its pew warriors. Pearce saw to it that the final Williams Commission report to the President recommended that the US should pressure other countries to eliminate agriculture trade barriers which blocked imports of US agriculture products. a special trade group chaired by the former President of IBM. all in the name of the American virtue of"efficiency. William Pearce became Nixon's Special Deputy Representative for Trade Negotiations. At that time Pearce was Cargill's Vice President for Public Affairs. Cargill. In 1972. Albert Williams. technology and capital. Income must become less dependent on unit prices and more dependent of production efficiencies. were defending "inefficiency." 13 In clear words. Free trade was the war cry of the Nixon Administration. better marketing and greater volume. and it argued against policies that supported what Pearce preferred to call "inefficient farmers. Not surprisingly. Walter B.. Saunders.

where the domina~t economic and trade power benefits from forcing removal of trade protection of weaker competitors. and open the way for the United States to become the world granary. where he developed domestic US agriculture policy. The family . adopted by the Nixon Administration." Washington would use the classic British "free trade" argument. Pearce's strategy became a central part of the 1972 Nixon New Economic Policy. and playa decisive role in the ability of a handful of giant American agri-chemical corporations to take over the world market in seeds and pesticides with their GMO plants. to "help repay" the US for its Cold War role. There his target was to remove US farming's "excess human resources" (sic). pointing out. the most "r'ational" use of world resources. Pearce argued. or more accurately. Anything else was patently "inefficient. The Pearce strategy. to drive hundreds of thousands of family farmers into bankruptcy to make room for vast agribusiness farming. Cargill's strategy was to shape US trade policy for the following three decades. was a thinly veiled form of food imperialism. in play since the 1846 Repeal of the Corn Laws. Pearce's. Cargill's Pearce was on the President's Committee forEconomic Development. In order to become the world's most efficient agriculture producer. "many of the economic problems we face today grow out of the overseas responsibilities the US has assumed as the major power of the non-communist world. It was a thinly veiled argument to justify US pressure on its trading partners to open their markets to Cargill and other US agribusiness giants. yet another practitioner of the revolving door system between select private companies and the Government agencies they depend on. He then went back to Cargill. traditional American family-based farming must give way to a major revolution in production." It forgot to mention the deliberate background to that United States global "policeman" role. Japan and other industrialized countries should give up their domestic agriculture self-sufficiency support.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION The Williams-Pearce report used the global security umbrella argument. Europe. Two years later.

In the bargain they would also lose food self-sufficiency." The Williams Commission believed. Nixon took a first step in carrying out the new export policies. This approach was widely supported by corporate agribusiness. As the president of the National Grain and Feed Association described it. The idea of US food self-sufficiency was replaced by a simple motto: what's good for Cargill and the grain export trading companies was "good for American agriculture:' The family farmer got lost somewhere in the shuffle. and focus instead on small fruits. paying for it by export of the fruit and vegetables. big New York banks and investment firms who saw the emerging agribusiness as a potential group of new "hot" stocks for Wall Street. Smith: . that to carry out such "free trade" policies. rice. sugar or vegetables. US agriculture would have to be converted into an efficient export industry. By devaluing the dollar in August 1971. naturally shipped by Cargill at prices controlled by Cargill. and adopting his New Economic Plan (NEP). the results could be predicted. Agribusiness and international trading giants like Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). "the NEP was very important in giving US agriculture an advantage due to the devaluation of the dollar:'14 Pearce further argued that Third World countries should give up trying to be food self-sufficient in wheat. George McGovern." and agriculture was to become "agribusiness. would set the priorities of US agriculture policy. This was to open a vastly more strategic lever over developing countries over the next three decades. as Pearce and Cargill well knew. along with his Senate champion. phasing out domestic farm programs designed to protect farm income and move to a "free market" oriented agriculture. According to economist J. control of their food. It became the cornerstone of the Nixon Administration's farm policy."TRICKY" DICK NIXON AND TRICKIER ROCKEFELLERS 49 farm was to become the "factory farm. When a poorer or less developed land removed defenses against foreign food imports and opened its markets to mass-produced US products.W. and other grains or beef. They should import the more efficient US grains and other commodities.



Highly mechanized farms on large acreages can produce units of food cheaper than even the poorest paid farmers of the Third Wofld. When this cheap food is sold, or given, to the Third World, the local farm economy is destroyed. If the poor and unemployed of the Third World were given access to land, access to industrial tools, and protection from cheap imports, they could plant high-protein/high calorie crops and become self-sufficient in food. Reclaiming their land and utilizing the unemployed would cost these societies almost nothing, feed them well, and save far more money than they now pay for the socalled "cheap" imported foods. 15

But such a sensible alternative was not to be allowed. The Nixon Administration began the process of destroying the domestic food production of developing countries as the opening shot in an undeclared war to create a vast new global market in "efficient" American food exports. Nixon also used the post-war trade regime known as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) to advance this new global agribusiness export agenda. . . In 1972, the Nixon Administration, with Cargill's Pearce in the key post of White House Deputy Trade Representative, and Peter Flanigan as head of Nixon's Council on International Economic Policy, developed the negotiating strategy for the upcoming GATT multilateral trade and tariff negotiations. Their main target in the next phase of their war for domination of world agriculture markets was the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Common Market countries, the European Community.16 The CAP had been built around protective tariffs when the European Economic Community was first created in the late 1950's, to prevent dumping of US and other agriculture products onto the fragile post-war European market. Pearce negotiated Congressional passage of the Trade Reform Act of 1974, which directed US negotiators to trade off concessions from the US in the industrial sector, in exchange for concessions to the US in the agricultural sector. This only accelerated the decline of many long-time US industries, like steel, which soon left an unseemly residue in the jobless and abandoned communities of the so-called "rust belt" scattered throughout the northeastern



USA. Steel was dilled a "sunset" industry, while agribusiness was to become a "sunrise" industry in the parlance of the day. "Food as a Weapon" Backed by Cargill and the giant US grain trade conglomerates, Henry Kissinger began an aggressive diplomacy, which he referred to as "Food as a Weapon." The Russian "grain robbery" had been one example of his diplomacy with the food weapon, a "carrot" approach. Another was his use of P.L. 480 in Vietnam during the War. As popular opposition to the Vietnam War grew, it became· difficult for the Administration to get funding from Congress for economic and military aid to South Vietnam. Congress was putting limitations on aid and the White House was looking for ways to avoid this kind of interference. One solution was to divert US aid through multilateral institutions dominated by the US, and another was to use food aid to support US diplomatic and military objectives. P.L. 480 programs were not subject to annual Congressional appropriations review and Nixon could spend up to $2.5 billion by borrowing from the Department of Agriculture's Commodity Credit Corporation, the same agency used some years later to covertly funnel US military aid to Saddam Hussein. With commercial markets booming and government reserves exhausted the Agriculture Department no longer needed P.L. 480 to dispose of surplus grain and food. The State Department played a major role in determining where the aid went. Kissinger's motto was clearly one of "rewarding friends and punishing enemies". P.L. 480 became a direct military subsidy for the Indochina war machine. In the beginning of 1974 the food aid to South Vietnam was $207 million. When Congress cut economic aid by 20%, the White House increased the P.L. 480 allocation to $499 million. Kissinger added a special provision so Vietnam and Cambodia could use 100% of counterpart funds for direct military purposes. I? When Congress passed an amendment in 1974 requiring that 70% of food aid be given to countries on the UN's list of the Most



Seriously Affected countries, Kissinger tried to get the UN to put South Vietnam on its list, which failed. Ultimately the White House circumvented Congress by just upping the amount of PL 480 aid from $1 billion to $1.6 billion. IS Kissinger then aimed his food weapon at Chile. Like other forms of US aid to Chile, PL 480 was turned "off" when the socialist government of Salvador Allende came into power and began to implement a series of economic reforms. The aid cutoff was done on Kissinger's orders. It was turned back "on" as soon as the US-backed military dictatorship of Augosto Pinochet was mpower. Food played a key part in the Kissinger-orchestrated coup against Allende in 1973. Supported by the State Department and the CIA, right-wing wealthy Chilean landowners sabotaged food production, doubling food imports and exhausting Chile's foreign reserves. 19 This made it very difficult for Chile to import food. The ensuing food shortages created middle class discontent. Allende's request for food credit was denied by the US State Department, even though it should have been the Department of Agriculture's domain. Kissinger had stolen the turf from Agriculture Secretary Earl Butz. After the 1973 military coup, the US food aid granted to Chile was sold on the domestic market by the Pinochet government. That did nothing to ease the plight of the workers there because of massive inflation and erosion of purchasing power. The military junta was the main beneficiary because the infl~ of food aid eased balance of payments difficulties and freed up money for the military, at the time the 9th largest importer of US arms. 20 Back in 1948, as the Cold War was heating up, and Washington was setting up NATO, the man who was the architect of the US policy of "containment" of the Soviet Union, State Department senior plannin.g official George Kennan noted in a Top Secret memorandum to the Secretary of State:
We have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population .. . . In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envY and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of dis-



parity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction. 21

Such a steel-cold assessment of the role of the United States in the early 1970's found receptive ears with Henry Kissinger, a devotee of unsentimental balance of power Realpolitik. Nixon had also given Kissinger the task of heading a top secret Government task force to examine the relation between population growth in developing nations, and its relation to US national security. The motivation behind the secret task force had come from John D. Rockefeller and the Rockefeller Population Council. The core idea went back to the 1939 Council on Foreign Relations' War and Peace Studies Project leader, Isaiah Bowman. Global depopulation and food control were to become US strategic policy under Kissinger. This was to be the new "solution" to the threats to US global power and to its continued access to cheap raw materials from the developing world.



1. For a brief introduction to the extraordinary post-1945 bases of American global hegemony, useful are the following: Henry Luce, "The American Century': Life, 17 February 1941. New York Council on Foreign Relations, The War & Peace Studies summarized in http://www.cfr.org. Neil Smith, American Empire: Roosevelt's Geographer and the Prelude to Globalization, University of California Press, Berkeley, 2003. Andre Gunder Frank, Crisis: In the World Economy, Heinemann, London, 1980. 2. Francis J. Gavin, Ideas, Power and the Politics ofAmerica's International Monetary Policy during the 1%0'5, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/faculty/gavin. See also F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, Pluto Press Ltd, London, 2004, for a disc,!ssion of the de Gaulle gold issue. Also Central Intelligence Agency, Directorate of Intelligence, French Actions and the Recent Gold Crisis, Washington, D.C., 20 March 1968. 3. Samuel Huntington, et al., The Crisis ofDemocracy: Report on the Governability of Democracies to the Trilateral Commission, Trilateral Commission, New York University Press, 1975.
4. Ibid.

5. Ibid. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technotronic Era, Harper Publishing House, New York, 1970.
6. Clifton B. Luttrell, The Russian Wheat Deal-Hindsight vs. Foresight, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, October 1972, p. 2. 7. F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Or4er, 2004,London, Pluto Press Ltd., pp.130-138. 8. Time, What to Do: Costly Choices, 11 November, 1974, p.6. 9. US Department of Agriculture, World Grain Consumption and Stocks, 19602003, Washington DC, Production, Supply & Distribution, Electronic Database, updated 9 April 2004. 10. Sen. George McGovern, cited in Laurence Simon, "The Ethics of Triage: A Perspective on the World Food Conference", The Christian Century, 1-8 January 1975. 11. Laurence Simon, op. cit

12. Ibid. For a more complete discussion of the role of Kissinger in the 1973 oil price shock, see F. William Engdahl, op. cit.
13. Walter B. Saunders cited in A.V. Krebs, editor, The Agribusiness Examiner, Issue # 31, 26 April 1999. 14. A.V. Krebs, op. cit.




15. J. w. Smith, The World's Wasted Wealth 2, Institute for Economic Democracy, pp. 63, 64.

16. A. V. Krebs, Cargill & Co.'s "Comparative Advantage in Free Trade", The Agribusiness Examiner, #31, 26 April 1999. 17. Michael Hudson, Super Imperialism: The Origins and Fundamentals of us World Dominance, London, Pluto Press Ltd., Second Edition, 2003 (originally published in 1972), pp. 229-235 for an excellent elaboration on the political workings of PL 480 under Kissinger. In hearings before the US Senate on the PL 480 legislation, Sen. Milton R. Young observed that US agricultural surpluses could be used as an instrument of foreign policy: "In my opinion, we have been blessed and not cursed with some surpluses. We are in the position of a nation with agricultural surpluses, when many other nations are starving. When we have such surpluses, we have adverse farm prices .. . This bill proposes for the first time, I think, a very feasible and sound method of trying to make our agricultural surpluses available to other nations of the world who are needy and in want of these supplies." (Cited in Congressional Research Service, 1979: 2). 18. Noah Zerbe, Feeding the Famine? American Food Aid and the GMO Debate in Southern Africa, Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium, in http://www.geoci- . ties.com/nzerbe/pubs/famine.pdf., pp. 9-10. 19. NACLA, "US Grain Arsenal" Chapter 2: «The Food Weapon: Mightier than Missiles.», Latin America and Empire Report, October 1975, http:// www.eco.utexas.edu/facstaff/Cleaver/357Lsum_s4_NACLA_Ch2.htm!.

20. Ibid.
21. George F. Kennan, "PPS/23: Review of Current Trends in U.S. Foreign Policy", Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, Volume I, pp. 509-529. Policy Planning Staff Files, Memorandum by the Director of the Policy Planning Staff (Kennan)2 to the Secretary of State and the Under Secretary of State (Lovett). TOP SECRET.PPS/23. [Washington,] 24 February 1948. Kennan, one of the most influential shapers of the US Cold War, was author of a famous 1947 article in Foreign Affairs, the magazine of the New York Council on Foreign Relations. The article, "The Sources of Soviet Conduct;' was published in Foreign Affairs in July 1947. Signed under the pseudonym, "X' the true author was Kennan, who had been Ambassador Averell Harriman's Deputy in Moscow in 1946. The article set out the doctrine of containment of the Soviet Union, later known as the Cold War.

4 A Secret US National Security Memo
"Control oil and you control the nations; control food and you control the people .. . "

Henry Kissinger


Population Growth and National Security n April 1974" as a worldwide drought and the transformation of American farm policy was in full gear, Nixon's Secretary of State and National Security Adviser, Henry A. Kissinger, sent out a classified memo to select cabinet officials, including the Secretary of Defense" the Secretary of Agriculture, the Deputy Secretary of State and the CIA Director. The title of the top secret memo was Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for us Security and Overseas Interests. The memo , dealt with food poliCy, population growth and strategic raw materials. It had been commissioned by Nixon on the recommenda- , tion of John D. Rockefeller III. The secret project came to be called in Washington bureaucratic shorthand, NSSM 200, or National Security Study Memorandum 200. 1 It was deemed that, should it ever be publicized or leaked, NSSM 200 would be explosive. It was kept secret for almost 15 years until private legal action by organizations associated with the Catholic Church finally forced its declassification in 1989. After a disgraced 'Nixon resigned over the Watergate scandal in 1975, his successor,




Gerald Ford, wasted no time in signing the Executive Order making NSSM 200 official US government policy. The US decision to draft the policy came after the 1974 UN Population Conference in Bucharest, Romania, at which the UN failed to adopt the US position. That position had been shaped by the Rockefeller Foundation and most directly, by John D. Rockefeller III, and consisted in adopting a "world population plan of action" for drastic global population reduction policies. A fierce resistance from the Catholic Church, from every Communist country except Romania, as well as from Latin American and Asian nations, convinced leading US policy circles that covert means were needed to implement their project. It was entrusted to Henry Kissinger to draft that strategy, NSSM 200. In his original initiating memo, Kissinger stated:
The President has directed a study of the impact of world population growth on US security and overseas interests. The study should look forward at least until the year 2000, and use several alternative reasonable projections of population growth. - In terms ofeach projection, the study should assess: - the corresponding pace of development, especially in poorer countries; - the demand for US exports, especially of food, and the trade problems the US may face arising from competition for resources; and - the likelihood that population growth or imbalances will produce disruptive foreign policies and international instability. The study should focus on the i~ternational political and economic implications of population growth rather than its ecological, sociological or other aspects. The study would then offer possible courses of action for the United States in dealing with population matters abroad, particularly ip. developing countries, with special attention to these questions: - What, if any, new initiatives by the United States are needed to focus international attention on the population problem? - Can technological innovations or development reduce growth or ameliorate its effects?2



By December 1974, Kissinger had completed his policy document which included precise conclusions pertaining to global population growth:
The most serious consequence for the short and middle term is the possibility of massive famines iri certain parts of the world, especially the poorest regions. World needs for food rise by 2-1/2 percent or more per year .. . at a time when readily available fertilizer and well-watered land is already largely being utilized. Therefore, additions to food production must come mainly from higher yields. Countries with large population growth cannot afford constantly growing imports, but for them to raise food output steadily by two to four percent over the next generation or two is a formidable challenge. Capital and foreign exchange requirements for intensive agriculture are heavy, and are aggravated by energy cost increases and fertilizer scarcities and price rises. The institutional, technical, and · economic problems of transforming traditional agriculture are also very difficult to overcome. 3

In December 1974, the world was in the early weeks of an oil price shock which saw oil prices explode by a staggering 400% within the coming six months, with profound consequences for world economic growth. Kissinger had personally played the key, ·behind-the-scenes role in manipulating that oil shock. He knew very well the impact that higher petroleum prices would have on world food supply. He was determined to use these higher oil prices to us strategic advantage. Kissinger wrote in his NSSM report, referring to the poorer developing countries using the term, Least Developing Countries (LDCs):
The world is increasingly dependent on mineral supplies from developing countries, and if rapid population growth frustrates their prospects for economic development and social progress, the resulting instability may undermine the conditions for expanded output and sustained flows of such resources. There will be serious problems for some of the poorest LDCs with rapid population growth. They will increasingly find it difficult to pay for needed raw materials and energy. Fertilizer, vital for




their own agricultural production, will be difficult to obtain for the next few years. Imports for fuel and other materials will cause grave problems which could impinge on the US, both through the need to supply greater financial support and in LDe efforts to obtain better terms of trade through higher prices for exports.

Economic Development and Population Growth Rapid population growth creates a severe drag on rates of economic development .otherwise attainable, sometimes to the point of preventing any increase in per capita incomes. In addition to the overall impact on per capita incomes, rapid population growth seriously affects a vast range of other aspects of the quality of life important to social and economic progress in the LDes. 4

The Washington blueprint was explicit. The United States should be in the forefront in promoting population reduction programs, both directly through the aid programs of the Government, making acceptance of birth reduction programs a prerequisite for US help. Or it should act indirectly, via the UN or the Bretton Woods institutions (IMF and World Bank). Bluntly, the new US policy was to be, "if these inferior races get in the way of our securing ample, cheap raw materials, then we must find ways to get rid of them." This was the actual meaning of NSSM 200, in refined bureaucratic language. Explicitly on population control, the NSSM 200 declared,
[Tlhe US strategy should support general activities capable of achieving major breakthroughs in key problems which hinder attainment of fertility control objectives. For example, the development of more effective, simpler contraceptive methods through bio-medical research will benefit all countries which face the problem of rapid population growth; improvements in methods for measuring demographic changes will assist a number of LDes in determining current population growth rates and evaluating the impact over time of population/family planning activities. 5

Kissinger knew what he referred to when he spoke of "simpler contraceptive methods through bio-medical research." He was in close contact with the Rockefeller family and that wing of the US establishment which promoted bio-medical research as a new form



of population control. Auschwitz revelations regarding its use had made the term un savoury. Before World War II, it was known as eugenics. It was renamed by its promoters the more euphemistic "population control" after the war. The content was unchanged: reduce "inferior" races and populations in order to preserve the control by "superior" races. Food for Cargill & Co. The NSSM 200 also bore the strong mark of William Pearce and the Cargill agribusiness trade lobby. In a section titled, "Food for Peace and Population," Kissinger wrote, "One of the most fundamental aspects of the impact of population growth on the political and economic well-being of the globe is its relationship to food. Here the problem of the interrelationship of population, national resources, environment, productivity and political and economic stability come together when shortages of this basic human need occur."6 He continued, "The major challenge will be to increase food production in the LDCs themselves, and to liberalize the system in which grain is transferred commercially from producer to consumer countries:' In effect, he proposed spreading the Rockefeller Foundation's Green Revolution while also demanding removal of protective national trade barriers. The objective was to open the way for a flood of US grain imports in key developing markets. Explicitly, Kissinger proposed, "Expansion of production of the input elements of food production (i.e., fertilizer, availability of water and high yield seed stocks) and increased incentives for expanded agricultural productivity"-theessence of the Green Revolution. It went without saying that US agribusiness companies would supply the needed fertilizer and special high-yield seeds. That was what the so-called Green Revolution had really been about in the 1960's. NSSM 200 called for, "New international trade arrangements for agricultural products, open enough to permit maximum production by efficient producers ... ," not coincidentally, just the' demand of Cargill, ADM, Continental Grain, Bunge and the giant




agribusiness corporations then emerging as major US nationally strategic corporations. The NSSM document packaged the earlier Kissinger "food as a weapon" policy in new clothes: .
Food is another special concern in any population strategy. Adequate food stocks need to be created to provide for periods of severe shortages and LDC food production efforts must be re-enforced to meet increased demand resulting from population and income growth. US agricultural production goals should take account of the normal import requirements of LDCs (as well as developed countries) and of likely occasional crop failures in major parts of the LDC world. Without improved food security, there will be pressure leading to possible conflict and the desire for large families for «insurance» purposes, thus undermining ... population control efforts. [TJo maximize progress toward population stability, primary emphasis would be placed on the largest and fastest growing developing countries where the imbalance between growing numbers and development potential most seriously risks instability, unrest, and international tensions. These countries are: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, The Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia, and Colombia .. .. This group ofpriority countries includes soine with virtually no government interest in family planning and others with active government family 'pianning programs which require and would welcome enlarged technical and financial assistance. These countries should be given the highest priority within AID's population program in terms of resource allocations and/or leadership efforts to encourage action by other donors and organizations?

The Unlucky Thirteen ... Thirteen developing countries, including India, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, Turkey, and Colombia, encompassed some of the most resource-rich areas on the planet. Over the following three decades they were also to be among the most politically unstable. The NSSM 200 policy argued that only a drastic reduction in their populations would allow US exploitation of their raw materials.



Naturally, Kissinger knew that if it were be revealed that the US Government was actively promoting population reduction in raw materials-rich developing countries, Washington would be accused of imperialist ambitions, genocide and worse. He proposed a slick propaganda campaign to hide this aspect of NSSM 200:
The US can help to minimize charges of an imperialist motivation behind its support of population activities by repeatedly asserting that such support derives from a concern with: a) the right of the individual couple to determine freely and responsibly their number and spacing of children and to have information, education, and means to do so; and b) the fundamental social and economic development of poor countries in which rapid population growth is both a contributing cause and a consequence of widespread poverty. Furthermore, the US should also take steps to convey the message that the control of world population growth is in the mutual interest of the developed and developing countries alike. 8

In so many words, population control on a global scale was now to be called, "freedom of choice:' and "sustainable development:' George Orwell could not have done better. The language had been lifted from an earlier Report to President Nixon from John D. Rockefeller III. NSSM 200 noted that the volume of grain imports needed by developing countries would "grow significantly." It called for trade liberalization in grain imports around the world to address this alleged problem, a "free market" not unlike the one Britain demanded when its manufactured goods dominated world markets after the Corn Laws repeal in 1846. Like the "population bomb," the food crisis was also a manufactured hype in the 1970's, a hype helped by the sudden oil price shock on developing economies. The image of vast areas of the world, teeming with "overpopulation" and riotings or killings, were run repeatedly on American TV to drive the point home. In reality, the "problems" in developing sector agriculture were mainly that it didn't offer enough opportunities for the major US agribusi-

and division of the benefits among producers. Cargill and the giant US grain trading companies were not far away from Kissinger's door. The document concluded. but in the politico-economic issues of access. "In the longer run. itwas genocide. It outlined what was to become a strategy to promote fertility control under the rubric "family planning. consumers. The public would be led to believe that the new policy. In the strict definition of the UN Convention of 1948." NSSM 200 was remarkable in many respects. It made depopulation in foreign developing countries an explicit. Kissinger went on to suggest the kinds of coercive measures the US policy elite now envisioned. "an instrument of national power:' Then. to ensure US access to such strategic raw materials. and host country governments:' Forced population control programs and other measures were to be deployed if necessary.A SECRET US NATIONAL SECURITY MEMO ness companies. In short he advocated doubling the death rate to at least 20 million. at least what would be made public. The real problems of mineral supplies lie.' and it linked the population growth issue to the availability of strategic minerals. in a stark comment. was a positive one. LDCs must both decrease population growth and increase agricultural production significantly:' While arguing for reducing global population growth by 500 million people by the year 2000. He bluntly stated that food aid should be considered. The NSSM report added that. It was little wonder the document was classified "Top Secret. Sterilize or starve ." (emphasis added).. . Kissinger noted elsewhere in his report that the population problem was already causing 10 million deaths yearly. not in basic physical sufficiency. strategic national security priority of the United States Government for the first time.. "The location of known reserves of higher-grade ores of most minerals favors increasing dependence' of all industrialized regions on imports from less developed countries. in the name of addressing the problem of deaths due to lack of sufficient food. curiously enough. terms for exploration ·and exploitation. he suggested the US would ration its food aid to "help people who can't or won't control their population growth. if secret.

Brazil was one of the most clearly documented examples of NSSM 200. "a heartbeat away" from his dream of being President. one of the most significant aspects of NSSM 200 was that it reflected an emerging consensus with some of America's wealthiest families. and food control was to playa. working with Kissinger and Alexander Haig. Kissinger remained Secretary of . Most would not even be aware of what was happening. Kissinger had been replaced by his assistant and later business partner. Nelson was in effect. President Ford signed off on Kissinger's NSSM 200 as official US foreign policy. Richard Nixon had been forced from office in the mysterious Watergate affair. Kissinger later married a Rockefeller employee. central role in that business. By November 1975. in effect. some suspected on the machinations of a politically ambitious. Kissinger became Director of the Special Studies Project for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. One year later. The US was going into the depopulation business big time. to the new President for signature. Beginning in the late 1980's.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION However. In 1955 Nelson Rockefeller had invited Kissinger to become a study director for the Council on Foreign Relations. its most influential establishment. Vice President. Nelson Rockefeller. He was hired to act and negotiate on behalf of the most powerful family within the postwar US establishment at the time-the Rockefellers. but not hired by a mere President ofthe United States. The thirteen priority countries for population reduction were to undergo drastic changes in their affairs over the following thirty years. as NSC head. Scowcroft dutifully submitted Kissinger's NSSM 200 draft. almost 14 years into the . Nixon's successor. On November 1975. Nancy Maginnes. where he came to know the family on a first-name basis. Brent Scowcroft. Kissinger was. to round the connection. Nelson's old friend Kissinger was Secretary of State. a non-descript Gerald Ford. Brazil as NSSM 200 "Model" The secret Kissinger plan was implemented immediately. appointed Nelson Rockefeller to be his Vice President. a hired hand within the Government. State and Nelson Rockefeller.

It was on the target list of thirteen countries because "it clearly dominates the Continent [South America] demographically. the world scene over the next 25 years. the Brazilian government. which initially had been convinced to cooperate in the int~rest of economic growth and poverty alleviation. Most of the older women had been sterilized when the program started in the mid-1970's." According to some reports. the Brazilian Ministry of Health began to investigate reports of massive sterilization of Brazilian women. implied "a growing power status for Brazil in Latin America and on . Jornal do Brasil. Family Health International-all programs under the aegis and guidance of the US Agency for International Development (USAID). The government investigation was the result of a formal Congressional inquiry. They included the International Planned Parenthood Federation. which would eliminate future generations in a nation whose Black population is second only to Nigeria's. the NSSM memo warned.A SECRET US NATIONAL SECURITY MEMO implementation of NSSM 200. Such growth from Brazil.and other major Brazilian newspapers in May 1991. 11 Kissinger in NSSM 200 had noted the special role of Brazil. the US Pathfinder Fund. The Government found that the sterilizations had been carried out by a variety of different organizations and agencies. sponsored by more than 165 legislators from every political party represented in the Brazilian legislature. some Brazilian. the Association for Voluntary Surgical Contraception. . Hova do Povo (Rio de Janeiro). under the program." and its population would be projected to equal that of the United States by the year 2000. 9 The investigation had been initiated after information about the secret US National Security Council memorandum on American population control objectives in developing countries was published in the Jornal de Brasilia. The Brazilian government was shocked to find that an estimated 44% of all Brazilian women aged between 14 and 55 had been permanently sterilized." 12 . as many as 90% of all Brazilian women of African descent had been sterilized. protested to USAID that the sterilization programs had become "overwhelming and unnecessary. Almost half of Brazil's 154 million people in the 1980's were believed to be of African ancestry.1O By 1989.

some months before Kissinger's secret project began. hindered by strong opposition from church and other groups. as a result. In 1972. Henry Kissinger's National Security Council NSSM 200 paper on population control (1974) expressed the assumptions of a decades old effort to breed human traits. Its policy recommend~tions. Their report prepared the ground for Kissinger's NSSM 200. Rockefeller III was appointed by President Nixon in July 1969 to head the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. Scowcroft and the assorted Washington civil servants who carried out the new NSSM 200 policy. Abortion had been regarded as a major vehicle for fertility control by the Rockefeller circles for decades. What came next under NSSM 200 could only be understood fro~ the vantage point of the background to John D. Rockefeller Ill's obsession with population growth. population education so that the public appreciated the supposed crisis. None were more influential at the time than the Rockefeller brothers. Rockefeller proposed what were then drastic measures to stem an alleged population explosion in the United States. it got little press attention. and the repeal of all laws that hindered contraceptive means to minors and adults. stood a circle of private. . enormously influential persons. In the election year. 13 Among his recommendations were the establishment of sex education programs in all schools. grandson of the Standard Oil founder. On population policy. received major priority. It proposed making voluntary sterilization easier and liberalizing state laws against abortion. however. Nixon decided to downplay the report and. Rockefeller III. Rockefeller presented his report to the President. known until the end of the Third Reich as Eugenics. John D.66 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Behind Kissinger. no Rockefeller held more clout than John D.

. was declassified in 1980 but not made publicly available until June 1990. . Dated December 10. . no. cit. http://www.S. Introduction-A U.. Ibid. Part II.s. op. 3. 1. Security and Overseas Interests:' This document views population growth in less developed countries as not only a serious threat to strategic interests of the U.. cit. Ibid.html. Mode a. F. 1974. April 24. "Adequacy of World Food Supplies". B.html. Population Assistance. According to the magazine Catholic World Reporter. Global Population Strategy.. Part II: Policy Recommendations. Policy Recommendations: C Food for Peace Program and Population. p. Development of World. Part II: Policy Recommendations. 10. Ibid. Ibid.. Andre Caetano. 19.S. Ibid.orgl 11-CH3. cited in Baobab Press. Global Population Strategy.S. Executive Summary.. Baobab Press.Discussion. op. The NSSM 200 Directive and The Study Requested.Wide Political and Popular Commitment to Population Stabilization and Its Associated Improvement of Individual Quality of Life.com/2003/0s/thisarticle-printed-in-its-entirety. Vol. but also as the prime cause of political instability in Third World nations. 2. policy toward world population during the past 20 years . 8. Fertility Transition and the Transition of Female Sterilization in Northeastern Brazil: The Roles of Medicine and Politics. Brazil Launches Inquiry into US Population Activities. http://india. Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests.Countries Around the World. 11. Complete text is contained in Stephen Mumford. it is a study by the National Security Council (NSC) entitled «NSSM 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U. "The key document needed to understand U. paragraph 6. Executive Summary.populationsecurity. Initiating Memo. threatening American overseas investments. Ibid. 1996.. Part II: Policy Recommendations. Action to Create Conditions for Fertility Decline §3. II. 5. Washington D. paragraphs 9-10.indymedia. Alternate location in http://thepragmaticprogressive.html. United Nations Population Fund Inventory of Population Projects in Developing .:d Content of u.!.blogspot. Introduction-A U.orglenl2003/0s/4869.S.A SECRET US NATIONAL SECURITY MEMO Notes 1. (Emphasis added). National Security Study Memorandum 200. http://www. 1974: .S. Key Country priorities in U. Henry Kissinger.pdf..S. Ibid. Details of the Brazilian Congress inquiry are in Baobab Press. I.iussp. 6. 9.org/ BraziI2001/s10/S19_02_Caetona.C. 7. and Multilateral Population Assistance. 4. 12.

.Rockefeller III. 27 March 1972. Washington. cit. 13..68 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION 12. John D. Chapter I-Highlight of World Demographic Trends: Latin America.C. Henry Kissinger. "Part One: Analytical section". op. Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. D.

or JDR III as he was affectionately known. Operation Bootstrap was launched in 1947 to offer US firms the benefit of a cheap labor force as well as generous tax holidays. brother Nelson Rockefeller had invested in exploiting the cheap. were busy experimenting on human guinea pigs. Nelson Rockefeller was Under Secretary of the Department of Health. Education. flying them into New York at cheap rates on the family's Eastern Airlines shuttle. He was also engaged in setting up cheap labor manufacturing directly on the island. I At the time. under a government program named Operation Bootstrap. far away from prying US health and industrial safety regulators.CHAPTER 5 The Brotherhood of Death Y Human Guinea Pigs ears before Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft made population reduction the official foreign policy of the United States Government. Rockefeller III. In the 1950's. the Rockefeller brothers. non-unionized labor of Puerto Ricans in the New York garment center sweatshops. in particular John D. . and Welfare and a shadowy and highly influential figure in the Eisenhower Administration.

Chase's most profitable business during the 1950's was via Puerto Rico and Operation Bootstrap. the boots were owned by the Rockefeller family and their business friends around David Rockefeller's Chase Bank. with ultimate legal control decided in Washington. They used the spurious argument that it would protect women's health and stabilize incomes if there were fewer mouths to feed. 2 The only straps were those used by sweatshop owners on the island to force a higher level of productivity from their workers. Through his newly founded Population Council. financing runaway sweatshops fleeing higher wages in the us.70 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION In Nelson's version of Operation Bootstrap. By 1965. International Basic Economy Corporation (IBEC) built up vast assets on the island. usually without the mothers' consent. an estimated 35% of Puerto Rico's women of child-bearing age had been permanently sterilized. III was running human experiments in mass sterilization on the poorer citizens of Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico was a world leader in at least one category. It had the highest percentage of sterilized women in the world. It was a de facto US colony. 3 JDR III made Puerto Rico into a huge laboratory to test his ideas on mass population control beginning in the 1950's. By 1965. Puerto Rico was an unfortunate island whose sovereignty got lost somewhere in the shuffle of American diplomacy. 4 The Rockefeller's Population Council. brother John D. according to a study made that year by the island's Public Health Department. Poor Puerto Rican women were encouraged to give birth in sanitary new US-built hospitals where doctors were under orders to sterilize mothers who had given birth to two children by tying their tubes. and the US Government Department of Health Education and Welfare-where brother Nelson was UnderSecretary-packaged the sterilization campaign. While Nelson was busy encouraging the spirit of free enterprise among Puerto Ricans. with a mere 3%. making it an ideal experiment station. JDR III first ran some of the experiments in population reduction which would later become global State Department policy under Henry Kissinger's NSSM 200. The family-controlled company. India lagged badly in comparison. It made a difference when the .

later renamed the Rockefeller University. and was later named to the US Atomic Energy Commission. The Rockefellers had long regarded Puerto Rico as a convenient human laboratory. more than a decade before his policies were to become enshrined in NSSM 200. Eight of his subjects died. Rhoads's boast of killing Puerto Ricans appeared in Time magazine in February 1932 after Pedro Albizu Campos. Rockefeller told the listeners. my best to further the process of extermination by killing off 8 .. gives the problems posed by too-rapid population growth a somber and chilling caste indeed.. leader of the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party. most degenerate and thievish race of nien ever inhabiting this sphere. What the island needs is not public health work but a tidal wave . that." The "grim fact" . " John D. the Rockefeller Institute scientist was asked to establish the US Army Biological Warfare facilities in Maryland. "To my mind.8 In 1961. Ill's forced sterilization program was no radical departure for the family. the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research.THE BROTHERHOOD OF DEATH 71 Rockefeller family could control the process directly without government meddling.. It later came out that Rhoads had deliberately infected his subjects with cancer cells to see what would happen. Utah and also Panama. where radiation experiments were secretly conducted on prisoners. gained possession of the letter and publicized its contents'? Rather than being tried for murder. laziest. have dont:. In 1931. financed the cancer experiments of Dr. I . According to pathologist Cornelius Rhoads. "6 Initially written in a confidential letter to a fellow researcher. JDR III gave the Second McDougall Lecture to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Cornelius Rhoads in Puerto Rico. "Porto Ricans are beyond doubt the dirtiest.. a certainty that is mathematical. Rhoads was no ordinary scientist. hospital patients and US soldiers.Or something to totally exterminate the population. population growth is second only to control of atomic weapons as the paramount problem of the day:' He spoke of a "cold inevitability. 5 "Second Only to Control of Atomic Weapons .

If supply-i. They had also been financing experiments in forced sterilization of "inferior people" and various forms of population control as early as World War I. Harriman. For Rockefeller.. were quietly funding eugenics as members of the American Eugenics Society. Henry Fairchild and Alan Gregg... it seemed only natural that he and others of his "class" should decide which elements of the human species survived. John Harvey Kellogg from the breakfast cereal fortune.e. III. requires nothing more than an equalization of supply with demand. race theorists and Malthusians at the Rockefeller Foundation such as Frederick Osborn.. The Rockefeller Foundation has used this two pronged approach to great effect.. acting on the behest of some of its wealthiest families and most influential universities. banker J. he warned. The supply shortage has been addressed by . Their counterparts in the English Eugenics Society . frustrates man's achievement of his higher needs.. Few realized that individuals with names such as Rockefeller. Mary Duke Biddle of the tobacco family." They saw it as being a bit like culling herds of sheep for the best of breed. the proper care of sheep ..P. For John D. supply must be increased and demand must be decreased. 10 For most Americans and for most of the world. Clarence Gamble of Proctor & Gamble. the idea that the leading policy circles of the United States Government. advanced medical practices and increased crop yields. "cuts across all the basic needs of mankind and . Cleveland Dodge. As Jameson Taylor expressed it.72 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION of population growth. food. The demand problem has been solved by culling the herd via birth control and abortion. water and space-cannot meet demand. Morgan Jr."9 Rockefeller Supports Eugenics JDR III grew up surrounded by eugenicists.. in order that they could have "life as we want it to be. would deliberately promote the mass covert sterilization of entire population groups was too far-fetched to accept. The logic of human life for the family was simple: supply and demand.

"ll .· lation.ir Population Council and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. " Gregg then went on. Combating "The Human Cancer" Population and related food policies of the US Government of the early 1970's emanated from the halls of the Rockefeller Foundation.tion of powerful elite families at the expense of the welfare of most American citizens and of most of mankind. «how nearly the slums of our great cities resemble the necrosis of tumors. to observe. Gregg once wrote in an article for a scientific journal on popu. «There is an alarming parallel between the growth of a cancer in the body of an organism and the growth of human population in the earth ecological economy. one of the most eminent scientific journals in the US. so eliminate pollution by eliminating people . and from a handful of similarly well-endowed private foundations. but so far as I know. who went on to be the first head of UNESCO after the war. such as the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation. Arthur Lord Balfour and Julian Huxley. In reality. One man served as head of the Medical Division of the Rockefeller Foundation for more than 34 years. in a paper commissioned by Science. economist John Maynard Keynes. . An all-but unknown person to the outside world. they have never been cured by getting it. Winston Churchill. throughout his 34 years at the Medical Division of the Rockefeller Foundation. This was a formulation which translated as. these tax-exempt foundations served as vehicles for the advancement and domina. Gregg wielded tremendous influence. The true history of those organizations was carefully buried behind a falTade of philanthropy." He then asserted that «cancerous growths demand food. The analogies can be found in our plundered planet.THE BROTHERHOOD OF DEATH 73 at the time included the British Chancellor of the Exchequer. from the." And this «raised . His name was Alan Gregg.. It was an ideology of Malthusian brutality and racist finality. «people pollute. and his ideology pervaded the institute decades after. He was Vice President of the Foundation on his retirement in 1956.

From its founding onwards. Andrew Carnegie. John D. In 1936. That year Congress had passed the first federal income tax. slums or the fetid detritus of a growing tumor?"12 The Rockefellers' Darker Secrets The role of the Rockefeller Foundation in US and global population policy was not accidental. the founder of the Standard Oil trust. One of the first Rockefeller Foundation grants was to the Social Science Research Council for study of birth control techniques in 1923. Rockefeller Sr. the foundation created and endowed the first Office of Population Research at Princeton University. "Wealth passing through the hands of the few can be made a much more potent force for the elevation of our race (sic) than if distributed in small sums to the people themselves. headed by Eugenics Society member Frank Notestein. The newly-established Rockefeller Foundation's stated mission was. In 1913. This population policy role was the key to understanding the later engagement of the Foundation in the revolution in biotechnology and plant genetics. As Carnegie put it at the time. the philosophy of the Rockefeller Foundation was to deal with "causes rather than symptoms. nor was it a minor·aspect of the institution's mission. who know best how to use it. and the Rockefeller family. It was at the very heart of it. money should only belong to the very wealthy. to study the political aspects of population change.74 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION the whimsical query: Which is the more offensive to decency and beauty. "to promote the wellbeing of mankind throughout the world:' It went without saying that the foundation alone. would decide just what "promoting the wellbeing of mankind" entailed." Clearly . were enraged at what they deemed illegal theft of justly-earned gains. the Rockefeller Foundation was focused on culling the herd. From its inception."131n so many words. or systematically reducing populations of "inferior" breeds. was advised to hide his wealth behind a tax-exempt foundation. and the Rockefeller family and other wealthy Americans such as steel magnate..

New York where by 1917. that populations tend to expand geometrically while food supply grew only arithmetically." Malthus. leading to periodic famine and death to eliminate the "surplus" populations. at least the less wealthy portion of it. the Origin of Species. to reproduce and multiply itself. and the indolent . Rockefeller had become the office's second largest supporter after the Harriman family. which the Rockefellers and their wealthy friends regarded exclusively as their "God-given" right. John D.THE BROTHERHOOD OF DEATH 75 one of the "causes" of world problems. Francis Galton. and it was founded on Darwin's 1859 work. the tramp.. the pauper. JDR Ill's father. Rockefeller. "The Dangers to America Arising from Unrestricted Immigration:' In it he wrote about immigrants. and the Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor. then mostly from Italy. Junior. Ireland and the rest of Europe. Essay on the Principles of Population. An increasing number of people in the world meant a greater potential to cause trouble and to demand a bigger slice of the Big Pie of Life. as the f~mily saw it. Darwin had imposed what he termed. John D. Back in 1894. by rising living standards and increased food supply. thanks to the application of science and technological improvements. ignorant and hardly better than beasts. . However. "the application of the theories of Malthus to the entire vegetable and animal kingdom. when the family's oil fortune was in its early days. the vagabond. thus discrediting Malthusianism as a serious science. by the 1920's. asserted in his 1798 tract. calling them. wrote an essay as a student at Brown University entitled. Eugenics was a pseudo-science. was the persistent tendency of the human species."14 "The Best of Breed"-Eugenics and the "Master Race" One of the first philanthropic projects undertaken by the Rockefeller Foundation in the 1920's was to fund the American Eugenics Society. who shortly before his death had repudiated his own theory of population. "the scum of foreign cities. The word was first coined in England in 1883 by Charles Darwin's cousin. During the latter 19th Century. an explosion of population in Europe and North America was accompanied..

. The Pivot of Civilization.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Carnegie and . eugenics was the study of improving the "quality" of the human species. is really the greatest and most truly eugenic program and its adoption as part of the program of Eugenics would imme- . the journal of the Eugenics Education Society. "social Darwinism:' which justified their accumulation of vast fortun~s with theargument that it was a kind of divine proof of their superior species' survival traits over less fortunate mortals. under the guise of rational "family planning...other vastly wealthy Americans embraced a Malthusian notion of what came to be called.. an outright race supremacist. the unbalance between the birth rate of the 'unfit' and the 'fit' is admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization. She railed against "inferior classes" and was obsessed with "how to limit and discourage the over-fertility (sic) of the mentally and physically defective:' 16 As it was defined by its sponsors. portrayed as a selfless woman of charity. the "qualitative factor over the quantitative factor . a racist association promoting eugenics in the form of population control and forced sterilization." She wrote: "Birth control is thus the entering wedge for the Eugenic educator ."ls Sanger. Sanger wrote. who defined eugenics as "the science of improvement of the human race germ plasm through better breeding. whether physically or mentally:' In her 1922 book. Francis Galton. while reducing the quantity of "inferior beings:' or as Sanger put it. was in reality a committed eugenicist. in which among other proposals she advocates the idea of parenthood licensesno one being permitted to have a child unless they first obtain a government-approved parenthood permit.. A related major Rockefeller Foundation project in the 1920's was the financing of Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood Federation of America. who remained a Rockefeller family intimate until her death. initially known as the American Birth Control League. Eugenics is the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations. Darwin's cousin. in dealing with the great masses of humanity:' The title page of the Eugenics Review. "Birth control .. carried the original definition of British eugenics founder.

Indians. Harriman. as was talent. Two years later. a firm supporter of eugenics. "Blood of a Nation. the head of the Nazi Physicians' Association. This was eugenics. as the most constructive and necessary of the means to racial health. blond." 18 The aim of the index card project was to map the inferior bloodlines and subject them to lifelong segregation and sterilization to "kill their bloodlines. Blacks. the idea of a Nordic master race was not solely a Nazi Germany fantasy. that meant dark -skinned Asians." He claimed that poverty was an inherited genetic trait. It had its early roots in the United States of America going back to the early years of the 20th Century.THE BROTHERHOOD OF DEATH 77 diately give a concrete and realistic power to that science . The land for the institute was donated by railroad magnate." 17 Margaret Sanger was appreciated in international circles for her population control zeal. Dr. including the sick and retarded. American elite style. H.. where millions of index cards on the bloodlines of ordinary Americans were gathered. In 1933.. David Starr Jordan. in 1904 Andrew Carnegie's Carnegie Institute had founded the major laboratory at Cold Spring Harbor. Carnegie was funding an American Breeder's Association study on the "Best Practical Means for Cutting off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the Human Population. Naturally. outside New York City. Hispanics and others." As early as 1911. promoted the idea of "race and blood" in his 1902 book. Education had no influence. The President of the prestigious Stanford University in California. were deemed inferior to the eugenics goal of "best of breed. E. Contrary to popular belief. blue-eyed Nordic types. the Eugenics Record Office on wealthy Long Island. Gerhard Wagner." 19 . praised Sanger for her stringent racial policies asking fellow Germans to follow her model." The sponsors were out to eliminate those they deemed "unfit. if the ideal was ' tall. you either "had it" or you didn't. Reichsarztefiihrer. to plan the possible removal of entire bloodlines deemed inferior.

in Buck vs. or to let them starve for their imbecility. in a decision by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. ruled that the forced sterilization program of the State of Virginia was Constitutional. "As I have said. was also one of its most outspoken racists. Holmes wrote. but by 1927. Paul Bowman Popenoe. In his written decision. Popenoe's radical approach was a bit too controversial for some. elite readership. a US Army venereal disease speCialist from World War I. Laski. as to be in many cases. It was an example of what the eugenics movement termed "negative eugenics" -the systematic elimination of "inferior" beings. Po~enoe said. at one point or another.. it seems to me that all society rests on the death of men. "The first method which presents itself is execution . from the American Eugenics Society to Cold Spring Harbor. or bacteria or by bodily deficiency. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.. "Applied Eugenics. the ageing Holmes wrote to British economist and Labour Party leading figure.. If you don't kill 'em one way you kill 'em another--or prevent their being . Bell. whether mentally inferior. 20 One of the more prominent members of the American Eugenics Society in the early 1920's was Dr. Popenoe spoke of estimated five million Americans who would. It poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into various eugenics and population projects. In 1922. "It is better for all the world. physically handicapped or racially non-white."23 Holmes. the US Supreme Court. society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind . such as excessive cold. no doubt often. to the American Breeder's Association." In sum. . if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION One of the largest and most significant financial contributors for various eugenics projects soon became the Rockefeller Foundation. one of the most influential Supreme Court justices.. and of "five million more who are so deficient intellectually with less than 70% average intelligence. liabilities rather than assets to the race:'22 The book was aimed at a select. Harold J." In his book. end up in mental hospitals. Its value in keeping up the standard of the race should not be underestimated:'21 He went on to eloquently advocate the "destruction of the individual by some adverse feature of the environment. who wrote a textbook entitled..

000 to a total of hundreds of German eugenics researchers. 27 As American researcher Ed~in Black and others later documented. the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes' words in their own defense.THE BROTHERHOOD OF DEATH 79 born. "Calling a Spade a Spade . Under its sweeping eugenics law. California sterilized some 9. mostly women classified as "bad girls. the Rockefeller Foundation donated through its Paris office a staggering $410. In the postwar world. a sum especially unheard of in a Germany devastated by Weimar hyperinflation and economic depression. The Rockefeller propaganda machine buried the reference. One Illinois mental hospital in Lincoln fed new patients milk from known tubercular cows. and any criminal found guilty of any crime three times could be sterilized at the discretion of a consulting physician." many of whom had been forced into prostitution.000 for the creation of the Berlin Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry. That was the equivalent of some $26 millions in 2004 dollars. it awarded an impressive $250. in the conviction that a genetically strong human specimen would be immune. From 1922 to 1926. 26 Years later. During the 1920's Rockefeller Foundation money dominated and steered German eugenics research. all feebleminded or other mental patients were sterilized before discharge. " The Rockefeller enthusiasm for eugenics during the 1920's did not stop at America's own shores. Is not the present time an illustration of Malthus?" The statement could have served as the guiding slogan of the Rockefeller Foundation eugenics efforts. not surprisingly. the victors defined the terms of peace and the truth of war... passed in 1909. it was to no avail. Rockefeller Foundation money played an instrumental role in financing German eugenics during the 1~}20's. the leading psychiatrist at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute at .782 individuals. In 1926. 25 The State of California was the eugenics model state.24 This 1927 Supreme Court decision opened the floodgates for thousands of American citizens to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman.

and was a prime architect of the 1933 Nazi Sterilization Law. Under his Sterilization Law. the Rockefeller Foundation approved a further ten-year grant of a sizeable $89. 28 The multi-talented Rudin was also head of brain research at that institute. as part of the Task Force of Heredity Experts. one of several subsequent Rockefeller grants. Rudin and his staff. Rudin was twice honoured by Adolf Hitler for his contribution to German eugenics and racial cleansing. Muller.000 Germans were diagnosed as manic-depressive or schizophrenic and forcibly sterilized.000 to the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Brain Research.30 Rudin also led the Nazi program of forced eugenic sterilization. chaired by SS chief Heinrich Himmler. where Hermann J. In 1929. neurology and mental illness. with Hitler's signature. 32 Declaring racial hygiene a "spiritual movement:' Rudin and his . Rockefeller money was funding eugenics in its purest form. Rockefeller gave a grant of $317. the year of the great Wall Street crash and extreme German . and thousands of handicapped children were simply killed." The Rockefeller Foundation largesse for German research was apparently unbounded in those days. 3l Rudin called for sterilizing all members of an unfit individual's extended family. an American eugenicist also funded with Rockefeller money. Described as an ''American Model" law.000 to Rudin's Institute for Psychiatry to research links between blood. it was adopted in July 1933 and proudly printe<. a man who went on to a stellar career as the architect of Adolf Hitler's systematic program of medical eugenics. was employed.i in the September 1933 Eugenical News (USA). some 400. the mentally handicapped and other "defectives:' In 1931. drew up the steriliiation law.29 The brain research was directed towards the Nazi experiments on Jews.80 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION that time was Ernst Rudin. gypsies. Later it was revealed that the institute received "brains in batches of 150-250" from victims of the Nazi euthanasia program at the Brandenburg State Hospital in the late 1930's. Their platform was openly advocating the killing or sterilization of people whose heredity made them a "public burden. The Rockefeller-financed Rudin was named President of the World Eugenics Federation in 1932.economic crisis.

thousands of Germans from old age homes and mental institutions had been systematically gassed. as had been advocated twenty years earlier in the United States by Popenoe."37 That was one year before Hitler became Chancellor.38 . Leon Whitney. a co-founder of the American Eugenics Society."35 Hitler clearly recognized a kindred soul in Grant.." Grant advocated as a eugenic remedy "a rigid system of selection through the elimination of those who are weak or unfit-in other words. social failures (SiC). The Passing of the Great Race... the Germans were calling a spade a spade."36 In May 1932. Executive Secretary of the Rockefellerfunded American Eugenics Society. Human Heredity and Eugenics in Berlin. become a reality.' Rudin said. it is not our model German Republic.THE BROTHERHOOD OF DEATH 81 associates found a willing collaborator in Adolf Hitler. "Only through [the Fuhrer 1did our dream of over thirty years. By 1940. The germ-plasm research was to continue well into the Third Reich.. but the United States:'34 A few years later. financed with Rockefeller Foundation money until at least 1939. Of course. In it Grant had written among other things that America had been "infested by a large and increasing number of the weak. "While we were pussy-footing around . that of applying racial hygiene to society.. which quietly funnelled the US Rockefeller funds into Germany. pled of all races . The "KWG" was the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology. the Rockefeller Foundation sent a telegram to its Paris office. The telegram read: "JUNE MEETING EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS OVER THREE YEAR PERIOD TO KWG INSTITUTE ANTHROPOLOGY FOR RESEARCH ON TWINS AND EFFECTS ON LATER GENERATIONS OF SUBSTANCES TOXIC FOR GERM PLASM. just back from a tour of the German eugenics institutes. the broken and the mentally crip.. declared of the Nazi experiments. 33 Hitler personally was a great enthusiast of American eugenics. praising US eugenics efforts in 1924 in Mein Kampf "There is today one state in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception of immigration are noticeable. if with limited success: In 1940. Hitler wrote the American eugenicist Madison Grant to personally praise his 1916 book.

Now their "scientific" research could continue uninhibited. was assigned to Auschwitz." In 1936. who became President of the Rockefeller Foundation in 1936.D. who headed human experiments at the Auschwitz concentration camp after May 1943. the leading figure in the American Eugenics Society. His division was responsible for funding the various Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes. Another pivotal figure was Raymond B. Fosdick had earlier been general counsel to Sanger's . in the German Nazi eugenics journal Der Erbarztwhich he edited.D.) joined me in this branch of research. Fosdick. Anthropological testing of the most diverse racial groups in this concentration camp is being carried out with permission of the SS Reichsfiihrer (Himmler) . Von Verschuer was delighted when Mengele. the Foundation's Director of the Medical Division. 39 Von Verschuer's long-time assistant was Dr. and was by informed accounts. the Frankfurt institute was responsible for the compulsory medical curriculum on eugenics and racial hygiene. Josef Mengele. He wrote at the time to the German Research Society that: "My assistant. The largest of its kind. what had been established with their money over a period of more than 15 years was consolidated. His research on twins had long been a dream of American eugenics advocates in order to advance their theories of heredity."40 Never one to place principle before pragmatism. Ph. Josef Mengele (M. von Verschuer advocated a "total solution to the Jewish problem. the Rockefeller Foundation ceased its funding of most Nazi eugenics.. Hds presently employed as Hauptsturmfiihrer (captain) and camp physician in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Verschuer was called to Frankfurt to head a newly established Institute of Genetics and Racial Hygiene at the University of Frankfurt. By that time. was the man who was most intimately involved in the Nazi funding of eugenics at every step of the way. Dr. when the Nazis invaded Poland in 1939. who won the name "The Angel of Death" for his deadly experiments on human prisoners. still receiving Rockefeller funds. Alan Gregg.82 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION The head of the German eugenics institute in Berlin was Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer. In 1942.

THE BROTHERHOOD OF DEATH American Birth Control League.. He had been sent to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 as part of Col. The first president of the American Society of Human Genetics was Hermann Josef Muller. for which all records had been conveniently destroyed. a Rockefeller University Fellow who had worked at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Brain Research in 1932. who had mailed cocoa and coffee to Verschuer back in postwar Germany. In 1949. a new organization founded in 1948 by leading eugenicists hiding under the banner of the less-disgraced name. Dr. in California. He was the brother of prominent eugenics advocate. "The Inquiry. Old Nazi friends managed to whitewash Verschuer's Auschwitz past. Rockefeller Jr. Raymond Fosdick had worked for the Rockefeller family since 1913. the US Army eugenicist. Verschuer fled Berlin before the end of the war. Kallmann. Fosdick had written a personal letter to John D. After Versailles Fosdick went on to become John D. urging foundation funding for Margaret Sanger's eugenics work in birth control. he was writing to his old friend. Rockefeller Jr. an old eugenics colleague. 41 In 1924. stating: "I believe that the problem of population constitutes one of the great perils of the future and if something is not done along the lines these people are suggesting. Harry Emerson Fosdick. and was the person who in 1924 first convinced John D. the Auschwitz doctor Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer was named Corresponding Member of the American Society of Human Genetics. Paul Popenoe.' the secret team which ran the American negotiators at Versailles.hand down to our children a world in which the scramble for food and the means of subsis~ tence will be far more bitter than anything at present!'42 Leaving Mengele holding the proverbial bag. Edward Mandell House's group.. Rockefeller's personal attorney and ran the Rockefeller Foundation for over three decades. 43 Von Verschuer got his membership in the American Society of Human Genetics from another German. By 1946. who had worked with Ernst Rudin on . Franz J. of the importance of birth control and eugenics. and avoided a Nuremburg trial. genetics. we shall. the Rockefellers' pastor for whom Rockefeller built the Riverside Church in the mid-1920's.

John D. was a member of the American Eugenics Society. Kemp's Institute hosted the first International Congress in Human Genetics after the war in 1956.. Rockefeller Jr. JDR III joined the board of the Rockefeller Foundation itself. Fetter taught that "democracy was increasing the mediocre and reducing the excellent strains of stock . it was an obsession which would have untold consequences for generations after his death. Frank Fetter. With John D Rockefeller III he would co-found the Rockefeller Population Council. also a member of the American Eugenics Society." Part of von Verschuer's re-packaged identity was a position he got after the war with the newly-created Bureau of Human Heredity in Copenhagen."45 In 1931. fostered JDR Ill's interest in population control. to the care of Danish Institute Director. Tage Kemp. Osborn was president of the American Eugenics Society in 1946. Rockefeller Ill's obsession with overpopulation. JDR Ill's Princeton mentor. economics professor.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION "genetic psychiatry. During the Third Reich. The Bureau of Human He~edity received a letter from von Verschuer mentioning that he had the results of Auschwitz "research" moved to Copenhagen in 1947. named his son to the board of the family's Bureau of Social Hygiene. Osborn had expressed his early support for German ..44 JDR Ill's Population Council and the "Crypto-eugenics" Eugenics was the foundation of John D.. There" eugenicists like Raymond Fosdick and Frederick Osborn. When he was a senior at Princeton University in 1928. Given his enormous influence and the huge financial muscle of the Rockefeller Foundation to fund scientific research. John D. his father. The Rockefeller Foundation provided the money to found the new Danish office where the same eugenics activities could be more quietly advanced. and was also president of the racist Pioneer Fund. III was nurtured on the grim pseudo-science of Malthus and fears of population growth. Kemp had worked on eugenics with the Rockefeller Foundation since they financed his 1932 research stay at Cold Springs Harbor Eugenics Record Office. founding members of the American Eugenics Society. a birth control organization.

was attended as well by Detlev W. a year after Hitler came to power in Germany. a representative from the Carnegie Institute. The head of the Academy. With population control. Being promoted was the same unvarnished eugenics racial ideology. first director of the Council. 47 In 1952. Frederick Osborn personally praised the Nazi eugenic program as the "most important experiment which has ever been tried:'46 In 1938. < . Rockefeller III was ready to begin his life's major work. Osborn remained a central figure at the Population Council until the late 1960's. In addition.000 of his own funds in addition to Rockefeller Foundation money. John D. he founded the Population Council in New York. With $1. Rockefeller and others in the establishment believed they had finally found the answer to mass. Ill's new Population Council along with Frederick Osborn. US Surgeon General during the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study. was sympathetic to the agenda of population control. The founding meeting of the Population Council. John Foster Dulles. In 1937. JDR III had written his father that he wanted to devote his energies to the population problerri. veiled under the guise of world hunger and population problems. Dr. Many of the leading American eugenicists had become pessimistic that their decades of efforts of forced sterilization of mental and other deficient people were making a difference in the quality of the leading genetic stock. he lamented the fact that the public opposed "the excellent sterilization program in Germany because of its Nazi origin. then president of both the Rockefeller Institute and the National Academy of Sciences. Bronk. John D. Thompson. then chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation and later Dwight Eisenhower's Secretary of State. director of the Scripps Foundation for Research in Population Problems. efficient and effective negative eugenics. held in the Rockefeller family's Williamsburg Virginia village.THE BROTHERHOOD OF DEATH sterilization efforts.400. Warren S. to promote studies on the dangers of "over-population" and related issues. played a key role in establishing John D. and Thomas Parran. Detlev Bronk." By 1934. were there as well. Rockefeller III arranged for the conference to be sponsored under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences to give it a quasi-scientific aura.

and the French abortion pill. The strategists around the Rockefeller eugenics organizations explicitly set out to pursue the same agenda as essentially Von Verschuer and the Nazi eugenics crowd had. members of the American Eugenics Society. and so did two men who ran the UN Population Division in later years. deploying vastly enlarged international resources. a contraceptive steroid implanted under the skin to provide contraception for several years. however. but under the deliberate strategy of what they termed "crypto-genetics. Whelpton from the Population Division at the United Nations came. The old talk of racial purity and elimination of inferiors was altered.'s Population Council. a vast sea of humanity which stood between the Rockefeller family and the realization of their ambitious postwar designs for a new American Century. both as well. Rockefeller shrewdly repackaged his discredited eugenics race and class ideology as "population control. Among the Council's favourite projects were funding research for Norplant. the American Eugenics Society made a little-publicized move of its headquarters from Yale University directly'into the offices of the Population Council in the Rockefeller Center in New York City. At the time of the founding of Rockefeller's Population Council. did not change its spots after the war. when he decided to create the Population Council. establishing itself as by far the most influential organi~a­ tion promoting the eugenics agenda in the world. The eugenics leopard." The key American proponent of hiding the eugenics nature of their work . the IUD contraceptive device. led the work." Population control and family planning were to be the new terms of reference for what was the same policy after 1952. Segal." Instead of focussing on domestic issues such as American poor immigrants or the mentally challenged.48 Over the following 25 years. 49 In 1952.86 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Pascal K. Frank Notestein and Kingsley Davis. Rockefeller scrupulously avoided using the term "eugenics. the Rockefeller Population Council would spend a staggering $173 million on population reduction globally. he turned his sights on the entire developing world. RU-486. It became far more deadly under John D. Sheldon J.

he explicitly called for "rriaking available the new forms of contraception to the great number of people at the lower economic and educational levels. by a policy of crypto-eugenics. a past Chairman of the English Eugenics Society. Dr. Osborn pointed to studies indicating that.." ". "A reduction of births at this level would be an important contribution to reducing the frequency of genes which make for mental defect:' He asserted that birth control for the poor would help improve the population "biologically. Blacker. A reduction in the number of their unwanted children would further both the social and biological improvement of the population:' Referring to racial minorities."50 During McCarthy's Red Scare campaigns in the 1950's United States.' a term denoting one who deeply hides his communist beliefs while working to subvert the American system.The most urgent eugenic policy at this time.. Frederick Osborn. Osborn said "Such couples should not be denied the opportunity to use new methods of contraception that are available to better-off families. with the proper approach. Eugenic goals are most likely to be attained under a name other than eugenics.. was "to see that birth control is made equally available to all inqividuals in every class of society. proposed that. "The Society should pursue eugenic ends by less obvious means. "less intelligent" women can be convinced to reduce their births voluntarily. because there is new evidence that the more successful or high IQ individuals within each group may soon be having more children than the less intelligel)t individuals within the group . In the late 1950's. countless innocent intellectuals had their careers ruined by being publicly accused of being "crypto-communists. which was apparently proving . that is." And for families which experience chronic unemployment. these trends are favorable to genetic improvement:' He stressed that the reason for making birth control "equally available" should be disguised: "Measures for improving the hereditary base of intelligence and character are most likely to be attained under a name other than eugenics ... Carlos P.THE BROTHERHOOD OF DEATH under the name "genetics" and "population control" was Rockefeller's head of the Population Council." Osborn insisted.

"The Society's activities in crypto-eugenics should be pursued vigorously. . They won't accept the idea that they are in general second rate ."51 Blacker was close friends with the Population Council's Frederick Osborn. A significant problem after the Second World War was that the very name eugenics had been thoroughly associated in the public mind with Nazi racist extermination programs. and founding member of the American Eugenics Society. first President of John D. Frederick Osborn. Sanger and their "superior class:' As Osborn put it. People are simply not willing to accept the idea that the genetic base on which their character was formed is inferior and should not be repeated in the next generation .. Rockefeller...... Instead of talking about eliminating "inferior" people through forced sterilization or birth con- a .88 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION successful in the US Eugenics Society. who was its President until he took the post as head of the Population Council in 1952. As Osborn formulated the problem in a 1956 article in Eugenics Review. what have we done wrong? We have all but killed the eugenic movement. We must ask ourselves."52 The architect of the American reshaping of the elitist eugenics agenda into the new garment of population control was Rockefeller's friend and employee. "The very word eugenics is in disrepute in some quarters ."53 Osborn had a ready answer: people for some reason refused to accept that they were "second rate" compared to Osborn. the English Eugenics Society agreed to Blacker's proposal. In 1960. and adopted a resolution stating. "We have failed to take into account a trait which is almost universal and is very deep in human nature. Rockefeller Ill's Population Council."54 Osborn proposed a change in packaging. the definition of a Master Race and other human atrocities.. Eugenics was to be mass-marketed under a neW guise... and should make contact with the Society for the Study of Human Biology . and specifically that the Society should increase its monetary support of the Family Planning Association (the English branch of Sanger's Planned Parenthood) and the International Planned Parenthood Federation...

" Ordinary people would be led down the path of eugenics and race culling without even being aware where they were going or what they were doing. "Let's base our proposals on the desirability of having children born in homes where they will get affectionate and responsible care. the word would be "free choice" of family size and quality. individuals will believe they are choosing on their own not to have children. Osborn appeared to purge eugenics in the postwar era of earlier racism. In reality he applied the racism far more efficiently to hundreds of millions of darker-skinned citizens of the Third . 1977 . Osborn added." In this way."55 "Foreshadowing the future work of the Population Council and the Rockefeller Foundation in population control:' Osborn wrote.THE BROTHERHOOD OF DEATH trol. albeit masquerading as free choice. Osborn saw the huge potential of contraception and mass ~ducation for eugenics. he argued. "unconscious voluntary selection."56 He wrote that some 13 years before the widespread introduction of the oral birth-control pill." And when such pressures are brought to bear. pressures can be given a better direction (for birth control) and can be brought to bear on a majority of the population instead of a minority.. Among other projects the Pioneer Fund "supported highly controversial research by a dozen scientists who believed that Blacks are genetically less intelligent than Whites:' according to a December 11. Osborn went on to call for a system of what he termed. As early as 1952 when he joined with John D Rockefeller III in the Population Council. "there is certainly a possibility that . and reduction of inferior races. Osborn also secretly held the office of President of the infamous white-supremacist Pioneer Fund from 1947 to 1956. 57 Publicly. again in his Eugenics Review. would be to appeal to the idea of "wanted children:' He said. the eugenics movement "will move at last towards the high goal which Galton set for it:' namely creation of the master race. One of his first projects was contributing the funds of his Population Council to research in a new "contraception pill. Osborn argued that the way to convince people to exercise the "voluntary" choice. World.. "if family planning has spread to all members of the population and means of effective contraception are readily available.

JDR III was chairman and Princeton eugenicist. As late as 1946. Frederick Osborn was an unfettered enthusiast of the Rockefeller Foundation's support for Nazi eugenics experiments. the so-called Geneticists' Manifesto entitled. Osborn had praised the Nazi eugenics program as the "most importarrt experiment that has ever been tried. Hello Dolly . In 1937. Member of the Rockefeller Foundation board and close family friend.. Osborn was a part of the wealthy American upper class.90 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION article in the New York Times. even though they later piously disavowed this knowledge. was board member. III.' he was still Secretary of the American Eugenics Society and President of John D. 59 When Osborn wrote those words advocating "unconscious voluntary selection. published. Osborn. which would later be the school ofJohn D. Osborn would pursue policies designed to preserve the hegemony and control of society by his wealthy associates. 58·Among recipients of Pioneer Fund money was Stanford University Nobel laureate. He got more than $1 million in research funds from Osborn's Pioneer Fund. William Shockley. then President of the American Eugenics Society. Under the banner of philanthropy. and later became President of Rockefeller's Council. Scion of a wealthy American railroad family. graduated in 1910 from Princeton University.. Rockefeller Ill's newly-founded Population Council. Osborn bemoaned the fact that the general public seemed opposed to "the excellent sterilization program in Germany because of its Nazi origin. He had . The Future of Human Heredity: An Introduction to Eugenics in Modern Society. in his Eugenics News magazine. who advocated forced sterilization of all persons with an IQ below 100."61 Osborn and the Rockefeller Foundation knew well that their money was going toward the Third Reich. Osborn published his book. "Genetically Improving the World Population:' In 1968. Yes."60 One year later. Frank Notestein. after the war and the ghastly revelations of the human experiments in Auschwitz and other concentration camps.

In a speech to the annual meeting of the American Eugenics Society in 1959.. Population Council chairman John D.. Frank Notestein."62 In short. Rockefeller's Population Council gave grants to leading universities including Princeton's Office of Population headed by Rockefeller eugenicist. was preparing himself to head a Presidential commission on the population problem. "With the close of World War II. Forerunning the later human cloning debate and the widely publicized sheep clone."64 Osborn also praised Muller's proposal to develop sperm banks to "make available the sperm of highly qualified donors." Osborn added: "The most urgent eugenic policy at this time is to see that birth control is made equally available to all individuals in every class of society:' He also noted that: "Eugenic goals are most likely to be attained under a name other than eugenics. Muller. Osborn doled out strong praise for Hermann J. Osborn cited studies showing that less intelligent women could be persuaded to reduce their births voluntarily: "A reduction of births at this level would be an important contribution to reducing the frequency of genes which make for mental defect. than to try to refashion into human form those pitiful relics which remained. Osborn stated.THE BROTHERHOOD OF DEATH 91 lost his postwar inhibitions about calling his work what it was: eugenics. Dolly. Rockefeller III.. out of appropriately chosen raw materials. a long-time friend of Osborn. Quoting Muller." The idea for a gene revolution was being debated back then. who had received Rockefeller funds during the 1930's for eugenics research. who in 1959 became President of the Rockefeller Population Council in order to promote a science called demography. In his book. they would be most likely attained by using crypto-eugenics tactics. Osborn wrote. Ernst Riidin's colleague in Germany. Its task was to project horrifying statistics of a world overrun . At that time his nominal boss and protege in population eugenics. genetics had made great advances and a real science of human genetics was coming into being . "It would in the end be far easier and more sensible to manufacture a complete new man de novo. Eugenics is at last taking a practical and effective form:'63 Genetics was the new name for eugenics.

. the same year that John D. money. The cream of America's corporate and banking elite were quietly lining up behind Rockefeller's vision of population control ona global scale. lending them an aura of academic respectability and above all. Gulf Oil and other prominent corporate members.. The Ford Foundation soon joined in funding the various Population Council studies. The Rockefeller Population Council grants were precisely targeted at creating a new cultural view about growing human population through their funding of demographic research such as that of Princeton's Notestein. founded the Population Council with Osborn at its head. Following the initial Rockefeller financing. thanks to Rockefeller Foundation money.92 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION with darker-skinned peoples. this effort was not simply an exercise in pure science but one which aimed specifically at policy . Sanger had first met JDR III in 1947.. . Newmont Mining Co..65 In 1952. her IPPFsoon was backed by a corporate board which included DuPont. to prepare the ground for acceptance of international birth control programs. Margaret Sanger created. US Sugar. She had convinced him then of the urgency of promoting mass birth control. they were slowly encouraging an evolution in thinking among "population specialists" to view intervention in demographic processes (particularly fertility) as not only appropriate but necessary.. in the 1950's: the non-profit sector was where the debate over the population problem actually played itself out.. According to John Sharpless who studied the history of population control using the Rockefeller Foundation archives. a global version of her American Planned Parenthood Federation called the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). RCA.. . David Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank.. [The Population Council made sure that] research would take place in both the social as well as the biological sciences . not only the legitimating of the "science" of demography but also the acceptance of demography as a policy science .. International Nickel. ultimately defining how the policy issue would be viewed in the period which followed [emphasis added] .

thus establishing a kind of strategic denial policy masquerading as conservation. The argument promoted in the American mass media by circles around the Population Council was simple and effective: over-population in poor developing countries leads to hunger and more poverty.THE BROTHERHOOD OF DEATH 93 Less than a decade after the revelations of eugenics and Auschwitz. Hugh Moore. which is the fertile breeding ground for communist revolution. in order 'that select global corporations should be able to claim them. population control was again becoming fashionable in certain American elite circles of the 1950's. as president of the World Bank. hungry peasants around the world. which would later become a major promoter of the gene revolution in agriculture. In 1960.' under the name of choice. founded the World Population Emergency Campaign with the help of funds from DuPont. The 1958 Castro revolution in Cuba provided additional impetus to instigating these fears among unwitting Americans. a campaign which had as its main aim to create and reinforce First World fears of a population explosion in Third World countries. Both the Population Council and Conservation Foundation were united around the unspoken theme that natural resources must be conserved. It was a testimony to the power of the US establishment to mould public opinion and encourage fears of exploding populations of poor. The population control lobby which would later shape Kissinger's NSSM 200 was consolidating around Rockefeller Foundation grants and individuals. Rockefeller friend and wealthy patron of population control. Ill's brother. of family planning and of averting the danger of "over-population"-a myth their think-tanks and publicity machines produced to convince ordinary citizens of the urgency of their goals. Eugene R. Black.'s Population Council. . but conserved from use by smaller businesses or individuals. Laurance Rockefeller. ran. former senior executive of David Rockefeller's Chase National Bank. John D. established and ran the Conservation Foundation in 1958 to complement John D. preparing a global assaUlt on "inferior peoples.

Franz J. 66 The choice of the term Human Genetics reflected the attempt to disguise the eugenic agenda of the new organization. Kallmann was a German scientist who left Germany in 1936 when it was discovered that he was part Jewish. The multibillion dollar project was. his old friend von Verschuer was also a member of this one big happy eugenics family. Most of its founding members were simultaneously members of Frederick Osborn's American Eugenics Society. In addition to teaching at Columbia University. By 1954. . Harriman and Carnegie had used for their notorious Eugenics Research Office in the 1920's. would constitute the new face of eugenics. Genetics. Kallmann's American Society of Human Genetics later became a sponsor of the Human Genome Project. as defined by the Rockefeller Foundation. Kallmann was a psychiatric geneticist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute. housed at the same Cold Spring Harbor center that Rockefeller. the American Society of Human Genetics. At the New York Psychiatric Institute. Kallmann's enthusiasm for eugenics was in no way dampened by his own experience of Nazi persecution of the Jews. asocial eccentrics and the lowest type of criminal offenders:' He demanded the forced sterilization of even healthy offspring of schizophrenic parents to kill the genetic line. and in 1948. Kallmann was a thorough-going advocate of practicing elimination or forced sterilization on schizophrenics. that schizophrenics were a "source of maladjusted crooks. recognized by the American Medical Association as a legitimate medical field. appropriately enpugh. Kallmann's American Society of Human Genetics soon got control of the field of medical eugenics. Dr. when in the United States. he helped rehabilitate German eugenicist Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer and win him respectability and acceptance in theAmerican scientific community.94 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION From Eugenics to Genetics A colleague of Ernst Rudin. he was founding President of a new eugenics front organization. In 1938. he wrote in an article translated by Frederick Osborn's Eugenics News. Kallmann continued the same research in genetic psychiatry he had done with Rudin in Germany. After the war.

. brothers Nelson and David were busy with the business side of securing the American Century for the decades following the crisis of the 1960's and 1970's. American agribusiness was to playa decisive role in this project. and the development of genetic biotechnology would bring the different efforts of the family into a coherent plan for global food control in ways simply unimaginable to most.THE BROTHERHOOD OF DEATH 95 While brother John D. III was mapping plans for global depopulation.

Robbing the Cradle: The Rockefellers' Support of Planned Parenthood. The Macmillan Co. Dr. Vasquez Calzada study cited in Bonnie Mass. J. Eugenics Quarterly. 3. Douglas Starr.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Notes 1. Ibid.seas. and Race Extermination in the 1930s. Arthur D. "Porto Ricochet": Joking about Germs. op. People. Rockefeller III on a series of world tours. 5619. No. in http://www. p. Laurence Rockefeller used Bootstrap state funds to build a luxury Dorado Beach Hotel and Golf Club (see The Rockefeller Archive Center.tribalmessenger.html. focusing on the need to stop the expansion of the non-white populations. 573-574. Vol. pp.cit. 4. pp. "Puerto Rico: A Case Study of Population Control. no. Oxford. Second McDougall Lecture. Oxford University Press. "Female Sterilization in Puerto Rico". p. April 1976. Food and the Well-Being of Mankind. Also "Porto Ricochet. 11-12. 1954. pp. 351-352.. 9. then chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation. 1961. Lederer.com/time/magazine/articie/0." Demography.net/writersltayltay_ 04robthecrad.' Science. 842.66-81.orglt-secret-gov/eugenics. 25 April 2003. 15 February 1932.16-18. 1966. 2002. See also Stycos.. Susan E. New York. . In November 1952.rockefeller. Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time. 2.. Warren. Cancer. 8. 4. pp.4.php#lsr6).htm.743163.3 (Aug. J. provides details about the role of Rockefeller's Chase Bank and Nelson Rockefeller's IBEC in Operation Bootstrap. 5. Quigley details the transfer of Operations Management techniques from the military after World War II to Operation Bootstrap under the Puerto Rican Industrial Development Corporation run by Governor Munoz via the US pentagon consultancy. Little Inc. no. 10. Vol. "In 1950 and 1951.lifeissues.edu/ bio/laurance. John D.html for the quote by Rhoads. Rockefeller III.' Latin American Perspectives. 300. "Revisiting a 1930s Scandal: AACR to Rename a Prize. The ACHE Report on the Rhoads cancer experiments is available at http://www.00. op. No.M. Time. 7. Carroll Quigley.l. et aI.. John Foster Dulles. with tens of millions of dollars from the Rockefeller family. cit. http://www. in http://www.' Time. 1986). NACLA. L. a brief history. 6.time. Jameson Taylor.edu/nsarchive/radiation/. Charles W. Fail 1977.gwu. Puerto Rico to New York: the Profit Shuttle.. 732. vol. see also. 9. pp. North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA). in http://archive." cited in Eugenics. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 23. NACLA Digital Archive. "Contraceptive Sterilization in Puerto Rico. Dulles and Rockefeller set up the Population Council. led John D.9171..

"Wealth". June 1889.cshl. 452-453.html. Harry Laughlin.edu/archives/ archives/ eugrec. 18. 1922. Brentano's Press. included some of the most · prominent eugenicists of the day. was a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Rei<. Archives: Eugenics Record Office.189. 19. "A Medical Aspect of the Population Problem. Report of the Committee to Study and to Report on the Best Practical Means of Cutting Off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the American Population. Margaret Sanger. vol. Andrew Carnegie. Princeton. she confided. Dr. 3150.13 May 1955. Cold Spring Harbor. and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South". and Environment. pp.e. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members" [emphasis added 1cited in Tanya L. Johnson. no. The board of Sanger's Planned Parenthood Federation. The project was a joint undertaking by the American Breeders' Association and the Cold Spring Harbor Eugenics Record Office. 653.THE BROTHERHOOD OF DEATH 97 11. Alan Gregg cited in Julian L. "the shiftless.' Scienc. In 1939 she created The Negro Project. Simon. "The Ultimate Resource II: People. "The minister's work is also important and he should be trained. 5. Margaret Sanger was clear in her advocacy of racial superiority. The Negro Project: Margaret Sanger's Genocide Project for Black Americans.:h as "scientific" and "humanitarian". 1988. North American Review. 121. 12. perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. http://www. a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. John Ensor Harr and Peter J.htm. p. Materials. New York. In a letter to a friend about the project." chapter 24: Do Humans Breed Like Flies?. The Rockefeller Century: Three Generations ofAmerica's Greatest Family. New York. Scribner's. 681-682. ' 13. Margaret Sanger. New York. Lothrop Stoddard. 1914. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda". 15. spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains" which he defined to include. another Sanger board member. p. 16. Princeton University Press.343-4. . October 1921. a white supremacist organization that is still functioning today. p. Green.want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. 17. he was later President of the Pioneer Fund. pp. p. Laughlin was the Superintendent of the Eugenics Record Office from 1910 to 1921. 1996.org/ negro. p. The Pivot of Civilization. which received generous funding from the Rockefeller Foundation.blackgenocide. ignorant. 1. We do not. Harry Laughlin. 14. Alan Gregg. Birth Control Review. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. in http:// library.

Carrie Buck vs. CLUEB. 292. Though Laughlin had never met her either. 1916. 1933.. 254-255. J-F Picard. which cites Rockefeller financial support to' the Eugenics R. 330. Folder 64. Schneider. pp. The Supreme Court of the United States.H. Politics and the Public Good. Box 10. 122. 24. Vol. II: Bienniel Reports of the State Charitable Institutions: October 1. War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race. revised edition. "Race Cleansing in America". to Harold J. in N. 22. October Term. edited by Mark DeWolfe Howe Atheneum. Series 717 A: Germany. Reprinted: G. cit. The Role of the Rockefeller Foundation (1920s-1950s). 1920-40: from Educational Philanthropy to International Science Policy". Macmillan Company. a report had been sent to him. Edwin Black. 135. Paul Weindling. Gemelli. p. 1926. Harry Hamilton Laughlin. p. 3. Oxford University Press. 25. 1. cited in Edwin Black. pp. Harriman Philanthropy to Have a Board of Scientific Directors': The New York Times. 28. State of Illinois Board of Administration. Vol. The Nazi Connection: Eugenics. 2004. State of Illinois. Rupke (editor). The 1922 quote from Justice Holmes is contained in a letter from Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Laughlin ~oncluded that she was part of the "shiftless. Basingstoke. Oxford. 1988. HolmesLaski Letters Abridged. p. Bell. New York. 117-136. in Cold Spring Harbor. op. 1917. Paul Popenoe and R.rockefeller. Johnson" Applied Eugenics. "The Rockefeller Foundation and German Biomedical Science. p. ignorant and worthless class of anti-social whites of the South' whose promiscuity offered "a typical picture of the low-grade moron:' Laughlin quotes are cited in Peter Quinn. 119-140. 26. p. Essays in Honour of Margaret Gowing.H. the justices of the Supreme Court never met Buck. ]. 14 June 1922.edu/publ!cations/guides/psychiatry. 27. 57.pdf. Clinton. Ibid. Macmillan. 695. Bologna. Thunders' Mouth Press. p. 123-137. See also "Extends Work In Eugenics. op. New York to help them make up their minds. 1914 to September 30. 1'l94.ecords Office in 1913 as second only to Mrs. 21. 23. including Buck's score on the Stanford-Binet testthat purportedly showed Buck had the intellectual capacities of a nine-year-old. MA. W. head of Eugenics Record Office. and German National Socialism. E. February/March 2003. No. Oliver Wendell Holmes. 1928-1939.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION 20. H. Science. . 1963. Rockefeller Foundation Archives. Managing Medical Research in Europe. American Racism. pp.. American Heritage Magazine. Laski. Edwin Black. 20 March 1913. They relied on the expert opinion of Dr. Berlin-Brain Research. Kaiser Wilhelm Institute. p. pp.. 1999. 20-21. See also Stefan Kuehl. Harriman. cit. New York. in http://archive.

The Rockefeller Foundation's Fundingfor Brain Research in Germany. cit.P. Chapter 3. 297. 32. Gunn. 171-174. Radiogram to Alan Gregg. such as.1 Ser 7171 Box 10 Folder 63. 1994. 10 November 1933. translated by Alvin Johnson. Charles Scribner's Sons.. cit. Cornelius Borck. 33. November 1992.. op.." 31. cit. p. 15. p. pp. 1933. or Walther Jaensch's outpatients' clinic fo.. p. pp. Ernst Rudin's program of an epidemiology of inherited nervous and psychiatric disease. pp. Also. Dr. 89. See as well. 317. was given permission to visit the Rockefeller Center archives to study files relating to the foundation's support for brain research during the Third Reich and after. he is forced to admit a number of embarrassing items: "the RF (Rockefeller Foundation-ed.. 1936. cited in Edwin Black. Raymond B. Eugenical News. pp. 35. the Foundation's official denials of funding Nazi research were "of course hardly correct. RF 1. "Eugenical Sterilization in Germany". 6 June 1939." 39. Reynal & Hitchcock.rockefeller. it did not do so until the United States entered into World War II. http://www. . Julius Hallervorden. op. Vol. "Hereditary Transmission of Mental Diseases". pp. cit. Verlag fur Politik und Gessellshaft. Leon Whitney quoted in Edwin Black.) did not cease its activities in Germany in 1933. 296.THE BROTHERHOOD OF DEATH 99 29." And further: "the RF had funded. op. 1930-1950. 37. Mein Kampf. Eugenical News. Vol. New York. a German researcher. p.pdf. p. Adolf Hitler. Institute for Brain Research. during the 1920s and early 1930s.P. 2216-2217. 65-66. "Manner Hinter Hitler'.. indeed. 341. p. 13 May 1932. New York. p 365. Memorandum from D. Malters. According to Gunn. Vol.r constitutional medicine at the Charite. Though his report is very mild. 38. Active Euthanasia and Julius Hallervorden".edu/publications/newsletter/nl2001. in testimony to his interrogators after the war. Ernst Rudin. Rockefeller Center Archive Newsletter Spring 2001. Letter to Selskar M. volume 42. op.1 717 16150. 299. Neurology. Borck. Madison Grant. The Passing of the Great Race. Rockefeller Foundation. quoted in Michael Shevell. 1941. op.O'Brien. O'Brien to Alan Gregg. for example. cited in Edwin Black. Rockefeller Foundation RF 1. Cited in Edwin Black. cit. 18. 658. 34. 2. Thomas Ruder and Volker Kubillus. op. Rockefeller Foundation RF 1. D. "Racial Hygeine. Fosdick.s0-51.1 717 946.archive. 30. Edwin Black. 1930. cit. 36. some projects by individual scientists engaged in eugenics and hereditary Cliseases who soon became close allies of the new regime and its ambitions for a racial science.91-93. Edwin Black.

San Francisco Chronicle. Ibid. Die bdliche Wissenschaft: Die Aussonderung von uden. RF RG 1. Also Benno Miiller-Hill. 49. op.php. 45. 1984. Box 2. 51..eugenicswatch. Johnson. 48.orgl articles5/MessallEugenics. 17 November 1932. "Eugenics and the Nazisthe California connection". cit. Rockefeller Jr. Chapter 10: Eugenics after World War II. On Fosdick's influence in shaping John D. op. cit. 53. cited in Rebecca Messall. 418419. p." 52. . Vol. John Ensor Harr and Peter J. 47. p. Chapter 10: Eugenics after World War II. 1988. op. Frederick Osborn. Eugenics Watch. op. 2000. Ibid.. Scribner's. Folder 15. Edwin Black. Population Council. Fall 2004. No. Ser 713. p. 43. Reinbeck bei Hamburg. http://www. New York. http://orthodoxytoday. Zigeunern und Geisteskranken 1933-1945. Fosdick to John D. Ibid. 44. 1968. 272. 54. com/ eugbook! euod_ch l. 9 November. p. Fall 2005. The Long Road of Eugenics: from Rockefeller to Roe v. Ibid.129. 24 February. Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer cited in Edwin Black. American Eugenics SoCiety Papers: Conference on Eugenics in Relation to Nursing. John Cavanaugh-O'Keefe.100 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION 40. 42. pp. p. The Rockefeller Century: Three Generations ofAmerica's Greatest Family. Originally published in Human Life Review. C. Summary of the Proceedings of the Conference on Eugenics in Relation to Nursing. 369.com/roots/index. 40-41..4. The Roots of Racism and Abortion: An Exploration of Eugenics. 1937. Frederick Osborn.. P. 210. Tage Kemp. 33-74. Raymond D. 50. Report of Tage Kemp to the Rockefeller Foundation. Momentum: News from the Population Council. New York. Rockefeller Ill's interest in eugenics and population see Harr & Johnson. pp. Blacker and "Crypto-Eugenics. pp. Wade. 379.html. http://www.html#6. "Retrospectives: Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era'. Eugenics: An Antidemocratic Policy. The Future of Human Heredity: An Introduction to Eugenics in Modern Society.. op. Curiously.2. 46. 41. July 2000.cit.. Thomas C. "The ICCR at 30: Pursuing New Contraceptive Leads". cited in Stefan Kiihl. Leonard. cit. 93-104. 30. Osborn never dropped his use of the term eugenics even in 1968. pp. Weybright and Talley. cit.eugenicswatch. John Cavanaugh-O'Keefe. Rowohlt. 2003. Journal of Economic Perspectives. cited in Edwin Black.

pp. 63. The Future ofHum an Herediyt: An Introduction to Eugenics in Modern Society. op. Draft of 26 March 1959. 1968. 11 December 1977.cit. pp. Eugenics: Retrospect and Prospect. pp. Frederick Osborn. 423. Sharpless. p.. Ibid.THE BROTHERHOOD OF DEATH 101 55. Stefan Kohl. Ibid. 93-104.000 over the last 10 years to Dr. New York. a leading proponent of the theory that whites are inherently more intelligent than blacks. 40-41 61. Ibid. 57. 56. Grace Lichtenstein. Rockefeller Archive Center Newsletter. "A private trust fund based in New York has for more than 20 years supported highly controversial research by a dozen scientists who believe that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites .. cit. 66. 60. 62. American Philosophical Society. April 23 rd.. Weybright and Talley. 64. 65. Frederick Osborn.. William B. The Rockefeller Foundation. op. The article states." 59. War Against the Weak. John B. Fall 1993. the Population Council and the Groundwork for New Population Policies. Ibid.. 93-104. Frederick Osborn. . The Shift to Genetics. cit. John Cavanaugh-O'Keefe. A month~long study of the Pioneer Fund's activities by The New York Times shows it has given at least $179. The New York Times. Draft Prepared for the Directors'Meeting. cit. AES Records-Osborn Papers. cited in Edwin Black. Chapter 10. 58. Lichtenstein. op. "Fund Backs Controversial Study of Racial Bettermenf'. op. Shockley.

was to be a worldwide business. effectively took over . Leading policy-making figures of the American establishment had quietly created a highly influential policy group in late 1939. it had become obvious to the heads of the largest American corporations and banks that the US market was far too small for their ambitions.' the unlimited expansion of American power. As they saw it. only weeks after the German invasion of Poland. based on the assumption a world war would come and that the United States would emerge from the ashes of that war as the dominant global power. the War and Peace Studies Group of the New York Council on Foreign Relations.CHAPTER 6 Fateful War and Peace Studies W Preparing a Post-War Empire ell before the triumphant victory of the United States in World War II. and two full years before Pearl Harbor would bring the US directly into the war. A seemingly easy victory in World War I and the gains of the Versailles Treaty in Europe had only whetted their appetite for more. The task of the secret group was simple: to shape US post-war economic and political goals. "Manifest Destiny. That elite policy-making circle.

The CFR had been established in May 1919. Between November 1939 and late 1942. Yale. State Department payroll.000 to finance the drafting of the agenda for post -war American economic hegemony via the War & Peace Studies Group. It defined the post-war American business empire globally. Their work was financed by the ubiquitous Rockefeller Foundation.FATEFUL WAR-AND PEACE STUDIES 103 all significant post-war planning for the US State Department. Princeton. banking and related industries.P. After 1942. like most made by the Foundation.fold in later years. along with senior partners from the major Wall Street law firms.' support of "free enterprise" and "open markets!' The interests represented in the Council on Foreign Relations task force were anything but democratic. were a breed apart. They were no ordinary small entrepreneurs. These American policymakers were largely concentrated among the select membership of the New York Council on Foreign Relations. or CFR as it was called. namely in oil. . The businessmen represented in the Council on Foreign Relations. were preparing the ground for the new "Pax Americana. It was an investment which. It was that of the elite handful of American corporations and their law firms which had developed global interests. a handful of businessmen and their academic associates at private universities such as Harvard. while most Americans were struggling with the devastation of the Great Depression. their American vision of global domination was based on economic goals rather than physical possession of a colonial empire. and Johns Hopkins. It was a brilliant refinement which allowed the US corporate giants to veil their interests behind the flag of democracy and human rights for "oppressed colonial peoples. Unlike the British Empire. most of its members were quietly put directly on the .! During the interwar years of the 1930's. Morgan bank. the Rockefeller Foundation had contributed no less than $350. by leading representatives of the J. paid back thousands." Their aim was simple: to consolidate an American succession to the failing Pax Britannica of the British Empire. in the days of the Versailles Peace conference in an exclusive meeting at the Paris Hotel Majestic.

. Most were headquartered in New York on the East Coast. Congress passed the Webb-Pomerene Act. Jacob Schiff and Paul Warburg. The initial financing to establish the CFR came from J. 2 This elite group had been successful in opening the legal doors for their move overseas by lobbying for a series of Congressional acts that exempted them from prohibitions against monopoly and other US Government anti-trust restrictions.P. In 1919. which exempted companies from anti-trust laws. Rockefeller. ing banks and oil interests of the Rockefeller and Morgan families. in 1920. Chase Bank. up close. the most powerful men of their day in American business. what lucrative potentials existed in taking over the shards of European colonial empires. Furthermore. to discuss establishing a private network of institutes to "advise" their respective governments on foreign affairs. In 1918. the US Supreme Court ruled in the US Steel case that mergers creating a near total market control were "not necessarily against the public interesf'3 At the core of these foreign US interests during the 1920's were the lead. which exempted US banks from the same antitrust laws for export activity and export of capital. They were the international corporate industry and banking leaders who had already seen. Congress passed the Edge Act.104 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION including Thomas Lamont. and other select persons including Woodrow Wilson's adviser. Bernard Baruch. Morgan in New York were the main beneficiaries of the Edge Act. The handful of influential US banks and corporations going abroad in the era of World War I were few. leading some to refer to it as the East Coast Establishment. Col. They met together with equally select British friends. John D. Morgan. Its de facto headquarters after World War I was the newly founded Council on Foreign Relations in New York. National City Bank and J. "if their activities are directed to export promotion:' Standard Oil was a major beneficiary of this act. most members of Cecil Rhodes' secretive Round Table group.P. effectively permitting monopolies. Compared with what they saw as the limited market potentials . together with representatives of the Rockefellers' Standard Oil group. Edward House. financiers Otto Kahn.

"4 Luce was reflecting the emerging view of the internationallyoriented US business and banking establishment around Morgan and Rockefeller."s The bloc included what was then. "Tyrannies:' Luce wrote. and a well-connected member of the East Coast elite. power. outside the sphere of the Soviet Union which. above all." He made an open call for Americans to embrace a new role as the dominant power in the world. He wrote. remained closed to American capital penetration. or what some called a Grand Area.escribed the emerging consensus of the US East Coast establishment around the·CFR. Their Grand Area was to encompass most of the planet. The American banking and industrial giants needed room. but Freedom requires and will require far greater living space than Tyranny. "The American Century:' In his essay. The "Amerkan Century"-The US Lebensraum In early 1941. wrote an editorial in the February 17 issue of Life entitled. «may require a large amount of living space. Henry Luce. a world in which the United States had not yet entered the war. The Economic & Financial Group of the CFR War & Peace Studies made a survey of world trade in the late 1930's. the British Empire. They proposed linking the Western Hemisphere with the Pacific into a US-dominated bloc. some ten months before the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. and they saw the golden chance to get it while all contending powers had been devastated by war. "the cure is this: to accept wholeheartedly our duty and our opportunity as the most powerful and vital nation in the world and in consequence to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence.FATEFUL WAR AND PEACE STUDIES 105 within the bounds of the United States. They needed unfettered access to global resources and markets after the war. profits and. publisher of Time and Life magazines. domination of vast new foreign markets offered untold potential. which was premised on what they called «military and economic supremacy for the United States. still. for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit. . Luce d. to their irritation.

Bowman's CFR group had drafted the basic outline for President Roosevelt of what would become the United Nations Organization. Bowman called it. For the CFR and the forward-looking members of the US policymaking establishment. including the new Bretton Woods institutions of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. They would cham" p ion world peace through multinational control. known as "America's Geopolitician" during the Second World War. had another term for the Grand Area. and the more neutral-sounding American Century was used instead to describe the emerging vision of post-war US imperialism. as well as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). the United Nations. when Bowman had worked on The Inquiry. "an American economic Lebensraum. the champions of the new American economic geography would define themselves as the selfless advocates of freedom for colonial peoples and as the enemy of imperialism. As Bowman and other CFR planers envisioned it. As Bowman and others of the CFR State Department study group saw it. Since late days of World War I."6 The term was later dropped for obvious reasons. Under the banner of "free trade" and the opening of closed markets around the world. in reference to Hitler's geographical term for the economic justification of German expansion. forcing open new untapped markets for cheap raw materials as well as new outlets for selling American manufactures after the war. The group drafted more than 600 policy papers for the State Department and President Roosevelt. a top-secret strategy group of President Woodrow Wilson. after World War II.106 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Founding CFR member and one of the leaders of the CFR War & Peace Study group. It was all based on a presumed US victory in a war which Washington was not even officially fighting. covering every conceivable part of the planet. the American domination of the world after 1945 would be accomplished via a new organization. Isaiah Bowman. US big business would advance their agenda. Bowman had been occupied with how to clothe American imperial ambitions in liberal and benevolent garb. global power would no . from Continents to the smallest islands.

viewed the victorious end of the War as a golden opportunity to dominate global policies to their advantage as never before. Nelson was working the other side of the fence. The family-above all brothers Nelson. Power would be defined directly in economic terms. Rockefeller III was busy devising new.FATEFUL WAR AND PEACE STUDIES 107 longer be measured in terms of military control over colonial territories. the family had financed the War & Peace Studies for the State Department. III. Nelson Rockefeller. especially in poorer. Nelson Ventures in Latin America Precisely what Isaiah Bowman and his War and Peace Studies colleagues in the US establishment had in mind with their notion of Grand Area and free market development soon became clear. later was to call «soft power. into what was called «American national interests. ever more efficient methods to promote racial purity and depopulation through his Population Council. Joseph Nye. They were shrewdly redefined from being Rockefeller private interests. It would be based on what one Harvard proponent. one of the primary financial backers of the Council on Foreign Relations War & Peace Studies. whose fortune had been built on a global empire of oil and banking. while brother John D. more «efficient. After the War. John D. . It was in the role of a forwardlooking international businessman interested in making world food production. It was revolutionary. wasted no time in taking advantage of the new economic possibilities World War II had opened up for American business." Nelson later called his revolution in world agriculture the Green Revolution." After all. The British and European empires proved to be a system far too costly and inefficient. less-developed countries such as Mexico. Laurance and David-whose foundat~on had financed the War & Peace Studies of the CFR."? As the War came to an end in 1945. but not in the way most people had been led to believe. Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller was to playa discreet and decisive behind-the scenes role in defining those global interests. no group epitomized the global outlook of American big business more than the Rockefeller family. .

from Brazil to Peru. the enormous petrochemicals trust of Germany. the Rockefeller family's Standard Oil. nominally on behalf of the Roosevelt White House. 9 While Nelson Rockefeller was ostensibly combating Nazi economic interests in Latin America as head of the ClAA. off the coast of Morocco and the Spanish Sahara . Standard Oil changed its policy. under the guise of combating Nazi infiltration of the Americas and of promoting "American democracy:' He was carefully laying the basis for post-war American business expansion. which at the time was a vital part of the German war industry.G. Walter Teagle. was arranging to ship vital tetraethyllead gasoline to the German Luftwaffe. as Britain itself was being bombed by German Luftwaffe planes. Mexico. in a clear violation of US official neutrality. Farben relationship went back to 1927.108 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION During the War itself. was the largest oil company in the world. Farben. with a senior US Government intelligence position. Venezuela and even Argentina. the next largest stockholder in Standard Oil was I.G. through its President. It controlled 84% of the US petroleum market. Its bank was Chase Bank. They merely altered the registration of their entire fleet to Panama to avoid British search or seizure. Skeletons in Rockefeller's Dark Closet In 1941. After the Rockefellers. Nelson could funnel US Government support to Rockefeller family business allies in key countries. The Rockefeller-I. Standard Oil of New Jersey. around the same time the Rockefeller Foundation began heavily funding German eugenics research. the ClAA was given a cover as art organization promoting "American culture" in Latin America. From that strategic position. s Nelson was named as ClAA head in August 1940. later renamed Exxon. and its main owners were the Rockefeller group. Nelson had combined" promotion of the vast Rockefeller family interests throughout Latin America. Their ships continued to carry oil to Tenerife in the Canary Islands. When Britain protested the shipment of such strategic materials to Nazi Germany. To conceal that delicate point. Co-ordinator of Inter-American Affairs (ClAA). The change was purely cosmetic.

Farben partners moved their "flight capital" through affiliated American. a Texas cotton magnate from the agricultural commodity firm Anderson Clayton. He was the direct liaison between President Franklin Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill's personal intelligence head for the Americas. Rockefeller and Stephenson coordinated closely on mutual intelligence operations in the Americas. During the war. Sir William Stephenson. a time when he was . Paul Manning. John McClintock.G. French. Nelson called the cooperative Latin military dictators he backed. 1944. ran the vast United Fruit plantations across Central America after the war. and Will Clayton.G. Truman charged. who directed a front company called British Security Coordination or BSC. Farben relationship "was approaching treason. often through ruthless military dictators who benefited from the backing of the Rockefeller family and insured favorable treatment of Rockefeller business interests. Nelson Rockefeller's work laid the basis for the family's vast expansion of interests in the 1950's. including Joseph Rovensky from Chase Bank. 13 Nelson's assistant. Stephenson's clandestine headquarters for his covert activity was in room 3603 in Rockefeller Center. Nelson Rockefeller's role in Latin America during the War was to coordinate US intelligence and covert operations in the days before the creation of the CIA. It was no coincidence. not far from Nelson's office."ll CBS News war correspondent. 12 Rockefeller brought with him to Washington a team he selected from family business connections. the Rockefeller-I. He shaped a USLatin American defense concept which was to tie the military elite of the region to US policies during the Cold War. German.FATEFUL WAR AND PEACE STUDIES 109 in Northwest Africa. in New York City. that the Rockefeller-I. reported that on August 10. British and Swiss banks. where they refueled and siphoned oil onto German tankers for shipment to Hamburg. Notably. in a Senate investigation. on whose behalf the CIA later conveniently orchestrated a coup in Guatemala in 1954. "the New Military:' 14 Nelson Rockefeller had been a leading figure in US corporate investment in Latin America since the 1930s. US Senator Harry S. 10 During the war.

which had to be carried on US ships. Soon Rockefeller boasted of controlling 1.110 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION a director of Standard Oil's Venezuelan subsidiary. IS As chairman of the US Government's International Development Advisory Board. One motive was to regain a foothold in Mexico through the guise of helping to solve the country's food problems. In 1938. In the 1940s. He did this by threatening neutral Latin American newspaper publishers with a cut-off of newsprint paper from Canada. Rockefeller set up the 11exican American DevelopmenfCorp.16 Rockefeller's media staff then saturated Latin America with planted news stories friendly to US and especially Rockefeller business interests in the region. It was indicative of how the new US international . Truman's foreign-aid program. and failed. Nelson used US guarantees to leverage the massive private lending by Chase. Creole Petroleum. de facto US control of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in 1944-45.200 newspaper publishers by threatening their newsprint. Rockefeller became the architect of President Harry S. Nelson Rockefeller and his brothers were laying the basis of their vast private business empire for the postwar era. Typically. Under the guise of fighting Nazi influence in Latin America. and with it. Cardenas had nationalized Standard Oil. During the War. Nelson had organized a network of journalists and of major newspapers owners throughout the region. He encouraged his brother David to set up Chase Bank's Latin American division. National City Bank (today Citigroup Inc. and was a personal investor in Mexican industries after the war.) and other New York banks throughout the Latin American region. was to secure for the United States the majority votes of participating nations in the founding of the United Nations. Among the most far-reaching covert operations carried out by Nelson and his circle in Latin America towards the end of the War. leading to bitter US-Mexico relations. to negotiate a settlement with Mexico's President Lazaro Cardenas for Standard Oil in Mexico. he had tried. as head of Roosevelt's CIAA.

At the time. sent a team to Mexico to discuss how to increase food production with the Mexican government. Rockefeller and US Vice President Henry A. On the whole. The Rockefeller-Wallace Report In 1941. As a result. The Wallace-Rockefeller team's Mexico report emphasized the need to breed crops that had higher yields. generous to a fault.FATEFUL WAR AND PEACE STUDIES 111 elite moved governments and others to suit their agenda. According to historian John Loftus. The UN was to be their vehicle. to launch his major Latin American agribusiness initiative. That allowed Argentina to vote with the "winning" side. who had served as Roosevelt's Secretary of Agriculture until 1940. more than perhaps anyone else in US business circles. Rockefeller and Washington pressured Peron to officially declare war on Germany and Italy. Wallace. and who had founded the seed company that became Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. as they saw it. the World Bank and a dominant role in the United Nations. which decades later would become a DuPont company and one of the Big Four GMO seed giants. even donated the land for the headquarters of the new United Nations in New York City. Washington and the powerful international banking business interests shaping its postwar agenda. This included the pro-Axis regime of Juan Peron in Argentina. corn was . Nelson Rockefeller was well situated in 1941. It was also good business. wrapped in the clothing of world democracy. some months before Pearl Harbor had brought the United States into the war. ended up with decisive control of the IMF.. Rockefeller used behindthe-scenes pressure to get the backing of all Latin American nations in the founding San Francisco conference of the United Nations in 1945. Wallace was a well-known agriculturist. The Latin American bloc represented nineteen votes to Europe's nine. the former Agriculture Secretary of Franklin Roosevelt. Rockefeller's politiCal strategy was to use his block of Latin American nations to "buy" the majority vote at the UN. I? The Rockefeller family. even though it was two weeks before the war's end. and a nice tax write-off to boot.

In 1943. President of the American Farm Bureau Federation. And oil was something the Rockefellers knew cold. The program included a young plant pathologist from the Rockefeller Foundation named Norman Borlaug. the Rockefeller Foundation started the Mexican Agricultural Program (MAC)."J9 By the time Roosevelt named thirty-two-year-old Nelson Rockefeller to be Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America.112 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION the major crop of Mexico. Brother Nelson had also just bought a vast ranch in Venezuela. "There are good properties in the British portfolio. along with wheat and beans. however. 18 This was not simple family farming. Mexico. The family was diversifying their fortune from oil into ·agriculture. vast holdings of high-quality Latin American farmland. Laurance and Nelson Rockefeller both had begun buying up. on the cheap. In 1943. for a conference on Inter-American cooperation organized by the US State Department. We might as well pick them up now. nine months before the bombing of Pearl Harbor brought the US into the war. as Nelson and Vice President Wallace were surveying Latin America for agricultural opportunities for the United States. joined with Nelson and other top US businessmen at Chapultepec. The economic model of global monopoly concentration they had built up in oil over decades would be the model for transforming the nature of world agriculture into a global "agribusiness.' as it began to be called in the 1950's. Laurance took advantage of British financial duress in the Americas and bought 1. as a result of the project. once owned by Simon Bolivar. Oil was the core of the new agribusiness economics. . Edward O'Neal. . As a Rockefeller aide at CIAA glibly said at the time.5 million acres of prime agricultural land on the Magdalena River in Colombia. That same year." In March 1941. headed by the Rockefeller Foundation's George Harrar. The Rockefeller family was preparing the first steps of what was to become a major transformation of world agricultural markets after the war. Rockefeller was fully involved with food and agribusiness. but global "agribusiness.

The markets of Latin America were coming into their view. 20 Rockefeller also agreed with US Pentagon generals at Chapultepec. As noted earlier. He called for exporting US technical expertise and capital to the developing world. They and their allies from the New York Council on Foreign Relations dominated the senior ranks of the US foreign policy establishment.L. stressing that the American private sector. Asia. demanded that the Americas be closed to all but US business interests. The US Department of Agriculture food surplus was viewed as a weapon of US foreign policy. including governments of Latin America. and Latin America. p.FATEFUL WAR AND PEACE STUDIES 113 At Chapultepec. open their doors to US products. 480 or "Food for Peace:' had formalized the process in a major way. 2 ! Dependence on US military security was to work in tandem with Latin American economic dependence on US companies and on US bank capital. and not the US Government. in a true spirit of free market. Truman announced that the US would fight the expansion of Communism in Africa. US export of agricultural products was nearly equal in importance to arms and manufactures export. US domination of global agricultural technology was fast becoming a weapon of the Cold War for Washington. 22 As the Cold War escalated in the late 1940's. .l940's than the Rockefeller family. and above all for the powerful Rockefeller interests. By the beginning of the 1950's. No one was more in the forefront of this transition in the. They also held major stock in the largest military defence industries. by 1954. Rockefeller agreed with O'Neal that US agriculture needed new export markets. including agriculture. The Rockefeller family and the Rockefeller Foundation had little problem getting their view of global food and population issues across to the US State Department. Nelson said he was looking for new "frontiers:' Rockefeller. should play the leading role in transferring US technology abroad. while demanding that the world. that selling US military surplus weapons to the governments of Latin America would be a good way to lock those countries into dependence on Washington for their military security after the war. The concept came from Nelson Rockefeller.

controlled. Cyrus Vance. IBEC was about the introduction of massscale agribusiness in countries where US dollars could buy huge influence in the 1950's and 1960's. the Dulles-Rusk -Vance. In reaUty. Dulles. Remarkably enough. Jimmy Carter's Secretary of State. organized as a profit-making enterprise. came to Washington from his post as Chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation. Moreover. also came from the inner circle of the Rockefeller Foundation. Early Agribusiness: Rockefeller Teams up with Cargill In 1947. a Wall Street lawyer. which could be traded. after the end of the War.114 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION The Rockefeller group wielded tremendous influence on the State Department. IBEe's aim was to show that private capital. non-profit foundation on post-war American foreign policy was kept well in the background. Eisenhower's Secretary of State. Nixon's National Security Adviser and Rusk's successor in 1974 as Secretary of State. John Foster Dulles. made scarce or plentiful depending on foreign policy goals of the few corporations controlling its trade. left his job as President of the Rockefeller Foundation to come to Washington in 1961. But the enormous influence of this private. Every man who served as Secretary of State in the critical Cold War years ranging from 1952 to the end of Jimmy Carter's Presidency in 1979 had formerly been a leading figure from the Rockefeller Foundation. John Kennedy's and later Lyndon Johnson's Secretary of State. Vance and Kissinger all understood the Rockefeller views on the importance of private sector activity over the role of government. . could upgrade the agriculture of developing countries. was Chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation before he came to Washington in 1952. Nelson Rockefeller founded another new company called International Basic Economy Corporation (IBEC). even though they were essential to understandinR key aspects of US foreign policy and food policy. and they understood how the Rockefellers viewed agriculture-as a commodity just like oil. Dean Rusk. Rusk.KissingerRockefeller ties were rarely mentioned openly. Henry Kissinger.

23 IBEC and Cargill began developing hybrid corn seed varieties. Since sugarcane needs nitrogen. initially as animal feed. Lester Brown.FATEFUL WAR AND PEACE STUDIES 115 Rockefeller's IBEC invited Cargill. only agro-business firms can supply these inputs efficiently."24 Brown further declared that the multinational corporation was "an amazingly efficient way of institutionalizing the transfer of technical knowledge in agriculture. which was the reason soybeans were introduced in Brazil. of . IBEC had lots of plans: hybrid corn production. hog production. Once it becomes profitable to use modern technology. Soybeans enriched or "fixed" nitrogen in the soil. That was later to become instrumental in the proliferation of GMO soybeans on the world animal feed market in the late 1990's. a privately-held US agribusiness giant." And the agribusiness firms which were then in the best position to provide seeds and fertilizer were. And so. the demand for all kinds of farm inputs increases rapidly. this reduced demand for fertilizer. crop dusting with helicopters. the corn was mixed with soymeal for animal feed. which later played a key role in plant and animal genetics in Brazil. It became a major weapon in the US food control arsenal. a procedure known as «rationing:' Brazilian farmers pioneered the planting of soybeans between the digging out of the old and planting of the new cane. They turned Brazil into the world's third largest corn producer after the US and China. The agricultural economics of sugarcane also led to Brazil's prominent role in the production of soybeans. One IBEC company was Sementes Agroceres. whose own Worldwatch Institute was created with a 1974 grant from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Cargill and the other US grain trading companies later developed soybeans into a major export commodity. to work with it in Brazil. Sugarcane plants could typically produce for about five years after which they had to be dug out and new cane planted. contract plowing and grain storage. stated the agenda of the Rockefeller Foundation's Green Revolution: «Fertilizer is in the package of new inputs which farmers need in order to realize the full potential of the new seed. In Brazil.

Thus. pinpointing which nations in Latin America. He wanted to continue projects he had started at the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Intelligence Affairs (ClAA) during World War II. beginning in the late 1950's. American agribusiness firms like DuPont. Mobil. John Foster Dulles. now Secretary of State. It did not hurt his effort that his old friend and former head of the Rockefeller Foundation. Rockefeller convinced Shell. he created the American International Association for Economic and Social Development (AlA). a precursor to NSSM 200. the Middle East and Africa were likely to be "soft on communism. Rockefeller was a master of deploying the rhetoric of Cold War necessity in the name of US "national security" while advancing family interests. the region faced the prospect that an exploding population would decrease the standard of living. The declared objective of the AlA was the transfer of technology and education. Southeast Asia. 25 Nelson A. and various other private donors to join him in underwriting the AIXs projects after 1946. Joining with several former ClAA colleagues. US agribusiness export was rapidly becoming a strategic core of US economic strategy alongside oil and military hardware. With the AlA. Pioneer Hi-Bred International." Brazil and Venezuela in Latin America were singled out in the study-Brazil because of its vast untapped wealth and Venezuela because of the Rockefeller family's involvement with its oi1. Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland. Nelson Rockefeller set up another organization to pursue similar work in Brazil and Venezuela. Gulf. Rockefeller wanted to rapidly modernize basic infrastructure. Nelson and his brothers had sponsored a series of studies. pursued a policy of nuclear "massive retaliation" and Cold War "brinksmanship:' which made the population ever-aware of the alleged dangers and threat of the .116 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION course. As a major stockholder in Venezuela's Creole Petroleum. In Brazil and Venezuela As the Rockefeller Foundation's Green Revolution was making major inroads in Mexico. encouraged by the Rockefeller Green Revolution. The AlA argued that if their efforts failed.

of genetically engineered food crops or GMO plants. That made it quite easy to justify almost anything in the name of "US national security interests. Their model of agribusiness. US industry and finance. . How this marriage of strategic interests came about and of what its longer-term goals consisted were to remain hidden under the rubric of free market efficiency. it wasn't what it advertised itself to be.FATEFUL WAR AND PEACE STUDIES 117 Soviet military. In the process. They even gave the process a new term-agribusiness. not s'urprisingly.world's population. they set out to take over the control of basic daily necessities of the majority of the . was at the forefront here too. The Rockefeller Foundation. driven by rules set out by the dominant player. modernization. provided the perfect partner for the introduction. feeding a malnourished world and other public relations fabrications-thus cleverly obscuring the boldest coup over the destiny of entire nations ever attempted." What Nelson Rockefeller and other leading US bankers and businessmen were creating with agriculture in Latin America was the early phase of what was to be a revolution in world food production. Like most revolutions. by the 1990's.

"because the whole plan would be 'ditched' if it became generally known that the State Department is working in collaboration with any outside group. (CFR's Hamilton Fish) Armstrong and Mallory entrained to Washington to meet with Assistant Secretary of State George S. These groups met more than 250 times." wrote (Isaiah) Bowman. University of California Press. 4. op. almost 100 men participated in the War and Peace Studies. and initiative. Studies of American Interests in the War and the Peace. pp. Supreme Court. 417. territorial. cited in Neil Smith. 287." . Joseph S. with nearly $350. "The American Century:' Life. but. pp. divided into four functional topic groups: economic and financial. New York. the career diplomats on the eve of World War II were scarcely better off than had been their predecessors when America entered World War I. as Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Council on Foreign Relations Press. pp. "Propaganda Isn't the Way: Soft Power". the research staff of the Council on Foreign Relations had started to envision a venture that would dominate the life of the institution for the demanding years ahead.1920. Over the coming five years. 1996. 2. The men from the Council proposed a discreet venture reminiscent ofthe Inquiry: a program of independent analysis and study that would guide American foreign policy in the coming years of war and the challenging new world that would emerge after.S. security and armaments. which marked them classified and circulated them among the appropriate government departments. reluctantly at first. Berkeley. 3. U.000. They produced 682 memoranda for the State Department. 10. 10 January 2003. This official account by the CFR of the War and Peace Studies project states: "More than two years before the Japanese attack on P~arl Harbor. usually in New York.: 6. New York.15. Neil Smith. At that time the Department of State could command few resources for study. Continuing the Inquiry: The Council on Foreign Relations from 1921 to 1996. 1939-1942. Nye Jr. "The matter is strictly confidential. 7. US Steel Corporation. With the memory of the Inquiry in focus.. 25I. The project became known as the War and Peace Studies. they conceived a role for the Council in the formulation of national policy. once convinced of its relevance. on such matters. cit. On September 12.u8 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Notes 1. research. and political. 23-26. Messersmith. 5. Handbook. The International Herald Tribune.. 2003. policy planning. Henry Luce. 325-328. US v. p.~' The Rockefeller Foundation agreed to fund the project. Peter Grose. over dinner and late into the night. Nye defines what he coined as "soft power": . 1939. p.S. U. American Empire: Roosevelt's Geographer and the Prelude to Globalization. Ibid. The New York Council on Foreign Relations. 17 February 1941.

Rockefeller's investments included such prime defense contractors as McDonnell Aircraft. 14 May 1995.. Business People and Latin Americans from the Age ofRevolutions to the Era of Globalization. Today's Zapatistas Still Fight the Rockefeller Legacy. Journal of Contemporary History. op. 1976." 8. HarperCollins. cit. op. 166. "Nelson Rockefeller and British Security Coordination". Margaret Carroll Boardman. Vol.S. 20.. 116. p. Biotechnology an Important Foreign Policy Issue for the 21st Century. William Stevenson.C. In addition to the known holdings in the Standard Oil companies. History Compass 2. 16.. p. Charles Higham. pp. pp. St. Rockefeller of New York to be Vice President of the United States. Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett. 1995. 67-69. The Nomination of Nelson A. cit.. Hearings. 17. New York. Paul. cited in Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett. "Soft power is the ability to get what you want by attracting and persuading others to adopt your goals. William Stevenson. 9. cit. Delacorte. Kramer. p. 14. 1981. 10..S.. pp.308-311. 13. Mexico 75 Years Later. 115-116. http://www. 2 nd Session. 22. 15. Chrysler Corp. and an asset that needs to be nourished. Ballantine Books. 21. 18. 19. p.edu/profmexivolume4/3summer99/Green_Finalm. A Man Called Intrepid. p. pp. 1933-1947. Committee on Rules and Administration. Sowing the Seeds of the Green Revolution: The Pivotal Role Mexico and International Non-Profit Organizations Play in Making.FATEFUL WAR AND PEACE STUDIES 119 . 56. The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People.53-54. pp. John Loftus and Mark Aarons. 373. 168. pp. Thomas O'Brien. Trading with the Enemy: An Expose of the Nazi-American Money Plot.. 16. Ibid. 11. 9yd Congress. Both hard and soft powers are important .. Making the Americas: U. 12. Thy Will Be Done: The Conquest of the Amazon-Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil. New York. .ucla. Senate. op.htm. Los Angeles Times. It differs from hard power. 1994. New York. LA 067. Ibid..isop. Ibid. 1974. 309. New York. Washington D. U. 1983.2004. 169.. 14-15. Government Printing Office. pp. 77-81. Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett. the ability to use the carrots and sticks of economic and military might to make others follow your will.pp. Martin's.. Ibid. 165-171. but attraction is much cheaper than coercion.

Dow Chemical. 1969. Lester Brown. http://www. John Freivalds.. Brazil Agriculture: Winning the Great Farms Race. pp. cit. 25.com/news. op. 212-214. 23. 24.cfm/tborigem/fe_business/id/5. Monsanto.120 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Boeing. . Praeger. Motorola and numerous other defense contractors. 3 March 2005.brazilmax. Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett. Bendix. Seeds of Change. Hercules. Chapter 1: New Seeds and Mechanization. New York.

III Creating Agribusiness PART .


nitrogen was a prime component of TNT and other high explosives. at US taxpayer expense. Dow Chemical. promoted in the name of free enterprise market efficiency against alleged "communist inefficiency. Nitrogen could also form the basis for nitrate fertilizers. American chemical companies emerged as the world's largest. Monsanto. it was introduced in India and elsewhere in Asia. Rockefeller's networks across Asia. to produce bombs and shells for the war effort.7 Rockefeller and Harvard Invent CHAPTER USA "Agribusiness" T A Green Revolution Opens the Door he Rockefellers' Green Revolution began in Mexico and was spread across Latin America during the 1950's and 1960's. The chemical industry developed the idea of creating large new markets for their . An essential chemical for making bombs and explosives. The "revolution" was a veiled effort to gain control over food production in key target countries of the developing world." In the aftermath of World War II. with Germany's LG. The most prominent companies-DuPont.Farben a bombed-out heap of rubble. backed by John D. Shortly thereafter. Hercules Powder and others-faced a glut of nitrogen production capacity which they had built up.

there was genuine US Government concern to contain communist and nationalist movements in the developing werld during the 1960's by offering food aid in the form of privately sponsored agricultural inputs. the Soviet Union and China. who had set up his own Agriculture Development Council in 1953. a group of four to five companies then including Cargill. for both domestic US agriculture and for export. With a monopoly on the agricultural chemicals and on the hybrid seeds. The global marketing of the new agri-chemicals after the war also solved the problem of finding significant new markets for the American petrochemical industry as well as the grain cartel. by the end of the War. Governments from the developing sector to the European Economic Community. anhydrous ammonia. Dow Chemicals and Hercules Powder among others. one year after he had founded the . III. "If you control the food you control the people:' . ammonia nitrate. soon depended on the powerful grain cartel companies to provide the needed grains and food products to maintain their political stability in times of bad harvest. included DuPont. as Kissinger noted in the 1970's. After all. Nelson Rockefeller worked hand-in-glove on agriculture with his brother. However. the combination of US Government aid and the techniques being developed in the name of a Green Revolution would present a golden opportunity forthe influential policy-making circles around Rockefeller and their emerging agribusiness groups to turn that concern to their advantage. The largest grain traders were American and their growth was a product of the development of special hybrid seeds through the spread of the Green Revolution in the 1960's and 1970's. . American agribusiness giants were intent on dominating the global market in agricultural trade. Truly. The nitrogen fertilizer industry was part of the powerful lobby of the Rockefeller Standard Oil circles which. John D. Agriculture was in the process of going global and the Rockefeller Foundation was shaping that process of agribusiness globalization.124 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION nitrogen in the form of fertilizers. Bunge and ADM. Continental Grain.

so went the argument. thereby to reduce hunger and lessen the threat of potential communist subversion of hungry. The focus of the Agriculture Development Council was Asia. Behind the fa'fade of agricultural and biological science. It was the same seducing argument used years later to sell its Gene Revolution. the Government of Mexico along with the Rockefeller Foundation set up the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT). The Green Revolution was the beginning of global control over food production. the Rockefeller Foundation's Green Revolution went into high gear. the Rockefeller Foundation was joined by the considerable financial resources of the Ford Foundation. another US private tax-exempt fOl. The heart of its strategy was to introduce "modern" agriculture methods to increase crop yields and. he worked on hybrid forms of rust-resistant wheat and hybrid corn types.lndation which enjoyed intimate ties to the US .L. were involved in both. not surprisingly. I Their efforts in food and agriculture received a boost that same year when US President Lyndon Johnson announced a drastic shift in US food aid to developing countries under P. They shared the common goal of long-term cartelization of world agriculture and food supplies under their corporate hegemony. namely that .AND HARVARD INVENT USA ''AGRIBUSINESS'' 125 Population Council. intelligence and foreign policy establishment. The same companies. the Rockefeller group was pursuing a calculated strategy through its Green Revolution during the 1950's and 1960's. That year of 1966. When the Rockefeller Foundation's Norman Borlaug came into Mexico in the 1950's.Government. The center focused its work on a wheat program. not yet the genetically engineered projects to come several decades later. while Nelson concentrated on his familiar turf in Latin America. however. In 1966. unruly nations. which originated from breeding studies begun in Mexico in the 1940s by the Rockefeller Foundation. as were the Rockefeller and other powerful US foundations.ROCKEFELLER. Together with the Ford resources. a process made complete with the Gene Revolution several decades later. 480.

mechanized tractors and other farm equipment. the same prize Henry Kissinger was to receive several years later. which meant pumps driven by oil or gas energy. but overall statistics showed significant rises in Indian wheat production. In India. landless peasants. Oil and agriculture joined forces under the Rockefeller aegis. In reality. and above all. it was not for biology but for peace. It ignored the huge disparity of wealth between large feudal landowners in such areas and the majority of poor. it created pockets of modern agribusiness tied to large export giants such as Cargill. from fertilizers to tractors and irrigation. The introduction of the Green Revolution did nothing to change the gap between rich feudal landowners and poor peasants. All inputs.126 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION no food aid would be sent unless a recipient country had agreed to preconditions which included agreeing to the Rockefeller agenda for agriculture development. required petroleum and other inputs from advanced industrial suppliers in the United States. . the Green Revolution introduced US agribusiness into key developing countries under the cover of promoting crop science and modern techniques. The new wheat hybrids in Mexico required modern chemical fertilizers. newly-irrigated farm areas of the Northeast. The regions where the vast majority of poorer peasants worked remained poor. Interestingly enough. they required irrigation. stepping up their population control programs and opening their doors to interested American investors. the new wheat hybrids were'all planted in the rich. the Green Revolution was limited to 20 percent of land in the irrigated North and Northwest. the Rockefeller's Norman Borlaug won the Nobel Prize.2 In 1970. and it was deliberately aimed at the richest farmers. Both men were also proteges of the influential Rockefeller circles. The Green Revolution methods were suitable only in the richest crop areas. Instead. In Mexico. reinforcing old semi-feudal Latifundist divisions between wealthy landowners and poor peasant farmers.

In the process. they created an invaluable network of influence for US agribusiness promotion in those countries. Philippines. name of science and efficient free market agriculture. as a Rockefeller Foundation Trustee. and IRRI for rice. Thus. CGIAR saw to it that leading Third World agriculture scientists and agronomists were brought to the US to "master" the concepts of modern agribusiness production. in order to carry it back to their homeland. the Rockefeller family's international environmental organizer.the Philippines. Ford Foundation's Forrest Hill. the Rockefeller Foundation. combined to form a global Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR).3 CGIAR was shaped at a series of private conferences held at the Rock~feller Foundation's conference center in Bellagio. Key participants at the Bellagio talks were the Rockefeller Foundation's George Harrar. through a carefully-planned leverage of its initial funds. Nigeria. Italy. . This Rockefeller Foundation network of institutes and research centers had gradually laid the basis for control over agricultural research and policy for much of the developing world by the time Kissinger was commissioned to draft NSSM 200. By 1971. the UN Development Program (UNDP) and the World Bank. along with their Mexico-based International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center and two other Rockefeller and Ford Foundation-created international research centers. Rockefeller by the beginning of the 1970's was in a position to shape global agriculture policy. who. organized the UN Earth Summit in Stockholm in 1972.ROCKEFELLER AND HARVARD INVENT USA "AGRIBUSINESS" 127 Training Cadre for the Bio-Revolution In 1960. the UTA for tropical agriculture. CGIAR drew in the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Robert McNamara of the World Bank and Maurice Strong. Rockefeller Ill's Agriculture Development Council and the Ford Foundation joined forces to create the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in Los Banos. all in the. John D. the Rockefeller Foundation's IRRl. To ensure maximum impact.4 Financed by generous Rockefeller and Ford Foundation study grants.

and coming out of the American universities. the true results were quite different from what had been promised. The mono-culture cultivation of new hybrid seed varieties de~reased soil fertility and yields over time. Arthur Mosher. One major effect of the Green Revolution was to depopulate the countryside of peasants who were forced to flee into shantytown slums around the cities in desperate search for work. In a widely read handbook. the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations worked hand-in-hand with the foreign policy goals of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and of the CIA. Problems had arisen from indiscriminate use of the new chemical pesticides. When the self-promotion around the Green Revolution died down. He argued that. to create more demand for store-bought goods. would follow the precepts close to the Rockefeller outlook on agriculture. This carefully-constructed network was later to prove crucial in the Rockefeller Foundation's subsequent strategy to spread the use of genetically-engineered crops around the world. tying them even more to the new market economy. the "affection of husbands and fathers for their families" would make them responsive to these desires and drive them to work harder. Rockefeller III's Agricultural Development Council also deployed US university professors to select Asian universities to train a new generation of scientists.5 Through the Green Revolution.l28 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION John D. Of course they would have to take out loans to invest in all this new technology. Executive Director of the Rockefeller Agriculture Development Council. The best scientists would then be selected to be sent to the United States to get their doctorate in agriculture sciences. That was no accident. often with serious health consequences. it was part of the plan to create cheap labor pools for forthcoming US multinational manufactures. insisted on teaching peasants to "want more for themselves:' They were to be urged to abandon "collective habits" and get on with the "business of farming:' Rockefeller's Mosher called for extending educational programs for women and building youth clubs. The first results were impressive: .

Because of the exorbitant interest rates for informal loans. many small farmers did not even get the benefits of the initial higher yields. growing subsistence crops gave way to the production of cash crops. They would get the credit courtesy of the World Bank and special loans by Chase Bank and other large New York banks. commodities controlled by the Rockefeller-dominated Seven Sisters major oil companies. the Green Revolution was merely a chemical revolution. backed by US Government guarantees. After harvest. Applied in a large number of developing countries. 6 The Green Revolution was typically accompanied by large irrigation projects which often included World Bank loans to construct huge new dams. super-wheat produced greater yields by saturating the soil with huge amounts of fertilizer per acre. creating additional markets for the oil and chemical giants. That soon faded. also .? The Green Revolution also introduced new machines for land preparation. those loans went mostly to the large landowners. This machine. they had to sell most if not all of their produce to payoff loans and interest. Huge quantities of herbicides and pesticides were also used. and flood previously settled areas and fertile farmland in the process. which puddled the rice paddy soil. Farmers who could not participate in this kind of program had to borrow from the private sector. As one analyst put it. Even with soft loans from government agencies. They became dependent on money-lenders and traders and often lost their land. Small peasant farmers could not afford the chemical and other modern inputs and had to borrow money. the fertilizer being the product of nitrates and petroleum. For the smaller peasants the situation worked differently. Also. in effect. Most notable was the so-called power tiller or turtle tiller. At no point could developing nations pay for the huge amounts of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Initially various government programs tried to provide some loans to farmers so that they could purchase seeds and fertilizers.ROCKEFELLER AND HARVARD INVENT USA "AGRIBUSINESS" 129 double or even triple yields for some crops such as wheat and later corn in Mexico.

Pioneer Hi-Bred. It enabled the growth of . led by Pioneer HiBred and Monsanto's Dekalb . had built the first major hybrid seed company. it was very efficient in doing that. The trend was later dubbed "market-oriented agriculture:' In reality it was agribusiness~ controlled agriculture. Franklin Roosevelt's Secretary of Agriculture. the lower yield of the second generation eliminated the trade in seed that was often done by seed producers without the breeder's authorization. the introduction of modern American agricultural technology. But. Unlike normal open pollinated species whose seed gave yields similar to its parents. Moreover. Henry Wallace. laid the ground for the later GMO seed revolution. 8 In effect. the yield of the seed borne by hybrid plants was significantly lower than that of the first generation. That declining yield characteristic of hybrids meant farmers must normally buy seed every year in order to obtain high yields. no competitor or farmer would be able to produce the hybrid. It was a first step in what was to be a decades-long. largely by encouraging selective USDA government research on the positive yield gains of hybrids and down playing their negative features. It prevented the redistribution of the commercial crop seed by middlemen. Agribusiness was making major inroads into markets which were previously of limited access to US exporters. The Green Revolution and its hybrid seeds promised a major new controlled market for US agribusiness. The global concentration of hybrid seed patents into a handful of giant seed companies. dependent on foreign inputs.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION destroyed much of the natural soil structure. chemical fertilizers and commercial hybrid seeds all made local farmers in developing countries. particularly the larger more established ones. Hybrids had a built in protection against multiplication. Another crucial aspect driving the interest of US agribusiness companies was the fact that the Green Revolution was based on proliferation of new hybrid seeds in developing markets. carefully planned process. If the large multinational seed companies were able to control the parental seed lines in house. One vital aspect of hybrid seeds was their lack of reproductive capacity.

ROCKEFELLER AND HARVARD INVENT USA "AGRIBUSINESS" 131 huge commercial seed companies. chemical fertilizers.9 Use of High Yield Varieties (HYV) of hybrid wheat. This was a worldwide trend. 10 In 1959. In place of fundamental changes such as redistribution of land and other rural assets from the large quasi-feudal landowners as the foundation for a more effective Indian agricultural development. already irrigated pockets of the country. Agricultural production of rice and wheat in the selected pockets grew immediately with the new hybrids and chemical inputs. This led to a situation where farmers disregarded other more traditional means of yield improvement. a team led by the US Department of Agriculture published the Ford Foundation's Report on India's Food Crisis and Steps to Meet It. through US AID and other government aid programs. Local government officials no longer considered the option of possible yield improvement based on traditional practices. The US Government. The chemical industry also claimed that the increased crop yields were only possible with the help of their products. Ford even fundc:d India's Intensive Agricultural Development Program (IADP) as a test case of the strategy. the Ford report stressed technological change including improved seeds. It was the "Green Revolution" strategy. and convinced the host developing sector governments to support them. . generous credit and price incentives. and major chemical inputs soon became the dominant practice. Soon. Often. which were labeled primitive and inefficient by the Rockefeller and Ford country advisers. the Rockefeller-Ford Green Revolution was adopted by the Indian government. with far-reaching effects. providing rich farmers in irrigated areas with subsidized inputs. the international chemical industry intervened to suppress or hinder research programs that would challenge their high input approach. corn or rice. This laid the basis for the later development of genetic patented seeds by a handful of Western agribu~iness giants. The World Bank backed the strategy with generous loans. Talk of land reform. and pesticides in small. backed this view.

Agribusiness and the Green Revolution went hand-in-hand. 12 But the Green Revolution had one success: it created a large new market for US and foreign agribusiness multinational firms to sell their chemicals. Rockefeller Finances the Creation of Agribusiness While the Rockefeller brothers were expanding their global business reach from oil to agriculture in the developing world through their Green Revolution scheme. In 1956. Davis wrote an article in the Harvard Business Review in which he declared that "the only way to solve the so-called farm problem once and for all. leaving the one-sided impression of success. and in much of the country. per capita agricultural output stagnated or fell. They were part of a grand strategy which included Rockefeller Foundation financing of research for the development of genetic alteration of plants a few years later. and avoid cumbersome government programs. John H. He left Washington in 1955 and went to the Harvard Graduate School of Business.132 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION tenancy reform. is to progress from agriculture to agribusiness:' He knew precisely what he had in mind. It was the beginning of what was called agribusiness. I I The initial spectacular growth rates eventually slowed. the cultivation of crops for human sustenance and nutrition. abolition of usury. which would form the infrastructure to globalize world food production under the central control of a handful ofprivate corporations. though this aspect was not widely publicized. 13 . they were financing a little-noticed project at Harvard University. machinery and other inputs to developing countries. Davis had been Assistant Agriculture Secretary under President Dwight Eisenhower in the early 1950's.' in order to differentiate it from traditional farmerbased agriculture-that is. Its creators gave it the name "agribusiness. overall agricultural production in India grew more slowly after the Green Revolution than before. On average. was dropped from the official Indian Government agenda. petroleum. though few others had a clue back then. never to return. an unusual place for an agriculture expert in those days. He had a clear strategy.

" A year later.14 In 1948. in a project funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. Wassily Leontief. the predecessor of the CIA. formed a Harvard team with the Russian-born economist. the US Government had hired Leontief to develop a method of inter-sectoral analysis of the total economy which he referred to as input-output analysis. few Americans realized that bitter battles had been fought to get Congress to outlaw vertical integration by giant conglomerates or trusts such as Standard Oil. in order to prevent them from monopolizing whole sectors of vital industries. the core idea driving the agribusiness project was the re-introduction of "vertical integration" into US food production. together with another Harvard Business School professor. a curious engagement for one of the prime US military branches.ROCKEFELLER AND HARVARD INVENT USA "AGRIBUSINESS" 133 Davis. Goldberg later referred to the agribusiness revolution and the devel." Monopoly and Vertical Integration Return with a Vengeance As Ray Goldberg boasted years later. It was to take four decades before it dominated the food industry. Ray Goldberg. The transistor and electronic computers had just been developed along with methods of linear programming that would allow vast amounts of statistical data on the economy to be processed. By the 1970's.000 grant from the Rockefeller Foundation to set up the Harvard "Economic Research Project on the Structure of the American Economy. Soon the Ford Foundation joined in the Harvard funding. Leontief got a major four-year $100. It wasn't until the David Rockefeller-backed Presidency of Jimmy Carter in the late 1970's that the US multinational business . who was then mapping the entire US economy. During the war. the US Air Force joined the Harvard project. Leontief worked for the US Labor Department as well as for the Office of Strategic Services . The Harvard project ~nd its agribusiness component were part of a major attempt to plan a revolution in US food production.opment of gene-modified agribusiness as "changing our global economy and society more dramatically than any other single event in the history of mankind. (OSS).

Davis and Goldberg had begun to industrialize specific sectors of American agriculture into agribusiness through vertical integration. well before Jimmy Carter.unaware citizens under the banner of "economic efficiency" and "economy of scale. The control of small citrus farmers soon gave way to large national orange juice processors such as Sunkist. long-term policy to decentralize and privatize many government functions . In 1973. ignoring anti-trust laws."IS Well before that. Rockefeller III. who dominated prices paid to the farmer through control of distribution and processing. Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher. step-by-step. The vertical integration process was sold to ." What they carefully left out of their propaganda was that deregulation by government merely opened the door to de facto private regulation by the largest and most powerful corporate groups in a given industry. consistent. he published The Second American Revolution." The war cry of the campaigners was "deregulation. however. food safety and consumer protection laws. Rockefeller called for a "deliberate..134 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION establishment Was able to begin the rollback of decades of carefully constructed US Government regulations of health. removed . The first result of the collaboration between Davis. 16 Their next target was to develop a strategy for the industrialization of the US wheat -to-consumer chain as well as the soybean market for animal feed. The person who first called openly for deregulation of government controls and privatization. and using Leontief's input-output approach to identify the entire production and distribution chain. and open the doors to a new wave of vertical integration.." A return to vertical integration and the accompanying agribusiness were introduced amid a public campaign in prominent media claiming that government had encroached far too much into the daily lives of its citizens and had to be cut back to give ordinary Americans "freedom. was John D. to diffuse power throughout the society. Goldberg and Leontief was a project to industrialize the Florida citrus industry. As the Government. In the book and in numerous public addresses.

17 The Big Five then controlled who had access to public stockyards for the cattle. Swift. especially in the meat sector. the first American industry to be completely vertically integrated had been oil. and restricted what retailers could buy. Furthermore. They integrated forward into marketing the beef. not surprisingly. they had used their domination to force out new . which wenton to dominate the global oil trade for the following century. Significantly. Five major companies-Armour. livestock credit. by writers such as Upton Sinclair whose book The Jungle described the fetid. of trying "to monopolize all the nation's food supply" by the 1920's. the vertical integration of the food industry accelerated. Wilson and Cudahy-were then in a position. even a Supreme Court decision in 1911 failed to break up the cartel in oil. under the Rockefeller Standard Oil Trust in 1882. unsanitary and often inhuman conditions of the meatpacking industry. market news media. They interfered with the livestock marketing process through monopoly control. and backward into monopolizing supply of raw material-beef cattle and hogs. as the US Government's newlyfounded Federal Trade Commission (FTC) accused them. The Standard Oil model. With the invention of the refrigerated railcar and assembly-line continuous meat processing plants. Morris. In the 1920's. the meat companies vertically integrated. following the revelation of shocking practices in the US meatpacking and processing industry.ROCKEFELLER AND HARVARD INVENT USA "AGRIBUSINESS" 135 regulatory controls on agriculture or on monopoly. terminal railroads. An FTC investigation in the early 1920's found that the five companies had dominated the purchase of livestock by controlling major stockyards. Despite repeated attempts by numerous states to outlaw Rockefeller's monopolistic control of oil and freight prices. The five had systematically and illegally acquired a near monopoly in meatpacking. controlled wholesale distribution channels. a series oflaws had been passed by the US Congress to control food monopolies. was the model for the Harvard Rockefeller Foundation project to create agribusiness from agriculture. and sites for potential rival packing plants.

the US food supply was once more going into the hands of a tiny. Those who stayed on the land were mostly forced to work for the hig agribusiness firms as "contract farmers. agribusiness rushed in to fill the regulation vacuum with its own private industry rules and standards. The standards were not set by all players. especially during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan. The process led to a concentration and transformation of American agriculture. As US Government regulatory barriers fell under the drumbeat of deregulation." "Where Have all the Farmers Gone?" As Government regulations. cold storage warehouses and severely reduced competitor market access. They controlled the retail level by owning refrigerator transport cars. the Big Five meat packers also controlled the market for substitute foods by buying or controlling . but typically rather by the top four or five monopoly players. especially during the 1980's . known as Factory Farms or corporate agriculture. The scale was without precedent. monopoly of agribusiness producers. Not content with all that. Independent family farmers were driven off the land to make way for "more efficient" giant corporate industrial farm businesses. 18 By the 1970's. . according to the Government investigation. them. food safety standards and monopoly laws were systematically loosened. aided by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundation funding of the Harvard Economic Research Project on the Structure of the American Economy under Leontief. Goldberg and Davis and their colleagues at Harvard were at the forefront of educating a new generation of corporate managers who would be infected with the prospect of staggering profits in the effort to totally restructure the way Americans grew food to feed themselves and the world.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION competitors and had cartelized the remaining market among themselves illegally. Goldberg and Davis were spearheading a new corporate rush into vertical integration and monopoly control of not only American but global food supply. ThIs time.

the transformation was quite profitable. and drugs.ROCKEFELLER AND HARVARD INVENT USA "AGRIBUSINESS" 137 Reagan-Bush era. Farmers who did manage to raise the money for animal confinement systems quickly discovered that the small savings in labor costs were not enough to cover the increasing costs of facilities. Their returns on equity had fallen from an average of 10% in the mid-1970's to only 2% a year. Archer Daniels Midland. took a nicely packed cut of beef or pork from the meat counter and thought they were still buying the product of the family farm. For the new corporate agribusiness giants. indentured through huge debts. He no longer owned the animals or the farm. forcing thousands out of . Most people simply went to their local supermarket. 19 Hundreds of thousands of independent family farmers were forced out of business with the spread of agribusiness and its large operations. out of the hands of family farmers and into giant corporate global concentrations. Family farmers' income for the vast majority of farm families plunged as they lost control of their market entirely to the agribusiness giants by the end ofthe 1990's. agribusiness began to transform the face of traditional American farming in ways so drastic as to be incomprehensible to ordinary consumers. of American food production. one-by-one. according to a study by the Senate Agriculture Committee. At the same time. The increase in factory farms led to a decrease in the price independent farmers got for their animals. Traditional farming was by its nature labor intensive. while factory farming was capital intensive. but to a global multinational corporation such as Cargill. Smithfield Foods or ConAgra. What began to take place instead was the wholesale merger and consolidation. He was effectively becoming like a feudal serf. They simply couldn't compete. the average annual return on stockholder equity for the industrialized food processing sector rose to 23% by 1999 from 13% in 1993. caging. not to a Lord of the manor. energy. The farmer gradually became a contract employee responsible only for feeding and maintaining concentrations of thousands of animals in giant pens.

at the same time that these companies control large shares of the agricultural chemical market. not that American farming had become giant corporate agribusiness. The extent of the dramatic shift was largely hidden by clever government statistical accounting methods to make it appear that family farmers were simply getting larger. that one company.22 When Cargill acquired the grain handling operations of Continental Grain in 1998. Consolidation resulted in just 3 percent of US hog farms producing more than 50 percent of the hogs. often desperate to attract jobs in regions of rural depression. Four large agro-chemicallseed companiesMonsanto.000 to 157. tax benefits and others. as the economic basis of entire rural communities collapsed and rural towns became ghost towns. while the number of hogs sold increased.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION business. The US Justice Department approved the merger. Four companies controlled 89% of the breakfast cereal market. A report to the US Secretary of Agriculture in the late 1990's described the enormous social costs of the destruction of the American family farm by agribusiness. The number of US farmers dropped by 300.000 between 1979 and 1998. and also buried. The . offered the new agribusiness giants attractive concessions. hoping to create new jobs and economic growth.000. The report found that the four largest beef packers controlled 84% of steer and heifer slaughter and 64% of hog slaughter.the region. The USDA report was buried. released just before the November 2004 US Presidential elections. Cargill controlled 40% of national grain elevator capacity. agribusiness moved in to fill the void. 24 Municipalities. Dow Chemical. Novartis. and DuPont-control more than 75 percent of the nation's seed corn sales and 60 percent of soybean seed sales. 23 As traditional farmers abandoned their family land in droves during the 1980's and 1990's. 20 The number of hog farms in the US decreased from 600. revealed that by then the degree of concentration and nearmonopoly in the food and agriculture economy of the United States was impressive to say the least. 21 Another minority report led by Senator Tom Harkin. to locate their industrial farms in .

TheCAFOs brought impressive concentrations of animal flesh into the smallest possible confinement space. 25 Cattle were packed into similar cages by the thousands. as a result of generous campaign contributions to Congressmen. Their goal was maximum corporate profit at minimum cost-Shareholder Value was the Wall Street term. Profit was the bottom line of the corporate agribusiness giant driving the transformation. often weighing 500 to 600 pounds. including "bar biting" and senseless chewing. and up to 28% for some types of chickens. The unnatural confinement created madness in the sows. Factory farming. The London Economist magazine. Gone was a system in which direct attention and care to the individual pig or cow or pasture land or crop soil mattered. It was unpublicized for obvious reasons. ter. arguing that it was more "cost effective" to take some "loss on inventory" rather than invest in proper veterinary care.The factory managers had no incentive to spend time or invest in individual animals. described the . The animal would never be able to lie down. in a May 2000 report. The US Department of Agriculture estimated that 10% of all animals confined in CAFOs died annually due to stress. enjoyed an exempt status from normal laws against cruelty to animals. would never leave a typical gestation cage of concrete and bars. Never in their entire life did they see daylight. What was termed a revolution in animal factory production began in the early 1980's.ROCKEFELLER AND HARVARD INVENT USA "AGRIBUSINESS" 139 main growth created by the huge animal concentrations was fecal matter-animal waste in unimagined volumes. The new production involved what was called "confinement feeding" or what came to be called CAFOs-Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. cattle and chickens were no longer produced on open fields or small farms where animals received individual attention from the farmer in event of illness or disease. Techniques of mass production and factory efficiency were introduced by the large corporations much as had been done in the auto industry assembly line production. and as a result developed severe foot problems.a factory pig. Hogs. a cell only as large as the animal. disease and injury. From birth to slaugh.

Iowa. The CAFO farms also routinely over-applied liquid waste to land areas. the Environmental Protection Agency. hence the name. known as "sprayfields.' causing it to run into waterways. "This ten-mile stretch of countryside north of Ames. The huge animal farms housed tens of thousands of cattle. reported the effects of the drastic reduction in Government rules on pollution and animal waste contamination from giant factory farm installations beginning during the Carter Presidency in the seventies.140 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION transformation of Iowa into the largest pig production center in America under factory farming. The EPA had refused to change the allowed levels of which livestock operations met their definition of CAFO with attendant pollution limits despite repeated lawsuits. pigs or chickens in small concentrations. their diets carefully monitored. an organization monitoring the role of US Government regulators in the area. like surgeons. spreading disease and contaminating community drinking water supplies. The EPA also dropped a requirement that would have forced facilities to monitor groundwater for potential contamination by animal waste. leaving commu~ nities vulnerable to potentially dangerous drinking water supplies. animal waste and pollution of ground water was no minor affair. up to 4. ruptured or overflowed-killing fish and other marine life.7 trillion pounds of animal waste a year. Bush Administration. It was estimated that the factory farms produced more than 130 times the waste that humans did.000 sows at a time are reared for slaughter. In massive metal sheds. Under the George W. But there is not an animal in sight. CAFO. They noted that the factory farm owners often evaded responsibility by hiring contractorsto raise their animals.27 Because of the huge scale of the CAPOs or Factory Farms. "Take take a trip to hog heaven. ."26 OMB Watch. their waste regularly siphoned away. their keepers showered and begowned. to avoid infecting the herd. at the request of agribusiness. repealed a rule that held corporate livestock owners liable for damage caused by animal waste pollution. or some 2. 28 That waste would then be channelled into enormous "lagoons" that often leaked. which often seeped into the earth.' they wrote. produces almost a tenth of America's pork.

the CAPOs typically would build earth pits to hold tens of millions of gallons of festering manure with an estimated "pollution strength" 130 times greater than human sewage. the Government catered to their needs to maximize profits. it created staggering new environmental and health hazards. animal waste contains disease-causing pathogens.ROCKEFELLER AND HARVARD INVENT USA "AGRIBUSINESS" 141 "Water contaminated by animal manure contributes to human diseases such as acute gastroenteritis. channelling them into vast "lagoons" which often ruptured or overflowed. Because of the financial muscle of the giant corporate agribusiness farms. 29 Among the findings documented by the NRDC study were some alarming consequences to the cartelization of US agribusiness. coli. which can be 10 to 100 times more concentrated than in human waste. into the United States' largest general source of water pollution. Further. the high levels of nitrates in drinking water also increase the risk of methemoglobinemia. killing fish and contaminating drinking water supplies. and fecal coliform. Putrid manure and urine waste contaminated countless streams and ground water sources across the United States. Concentrated into industrial centers of maximum animal density per square foot. such as Salmonella. 31 By the end of the 1990's. Cryptosporidium. and even death:' according to a 2005 study by NRDC. E. As well. factory farming had made agriculture . or "blue-baby syndrome:' which can kill infants. One study showed that a growing hog produced two to four times as much waste asa human and a milk cow the waste of 24 people. To deal with the large manure problem. More than 40 diseases can be transferred to humans through manure. 32 . fever. the corporations running the CAFOs would hire illegal immigrants at dirt low wages to deal with the huge waste concentrations. kidney failure. They documented that in 1996 the US Government's Centers for Disease Control established a link between spontaneous abortions and high nitrate levels in Indiana drinking water wells located close to animal feedlots. 30 Typically. such waste had never been a serious ecological problem. Spread over large fields in a traditional family farm. ignoring their legislative mandate to guard public health.

The waste produced by the animals was equivalent to that of 21 million people. The Center for Disease Control and the USDA reported that the spread of foodrelated disease in humans resulting from eating meat pumped with antibiotics and other substances was "epidemic. four large corporations-Tyson. Tyson. Penicillin . pushing nitrate levels of drinking water up 400%. Monsanto and Pioneer-HiBred of Dupont controlled 60% of the US corn and soybean seed market. with a total of 900. Cargill. but consumption of drugs. ADM and ConAgra controlled 63% of all flour milling. which consisted entirely of patented Genetically Modified seeds. 34 The big pharmaceutical industry was becoming an integral part of the agribusiness chain. One result was the evolution of new strains of virulent bacteria appearing in humans and resistant to antibiotics. By the end of the 1990's the largest users of antibiotics and similar drugs from the large pharmaceutical firms were not humans. The ten . Cargill.142 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION In California's Central Valley. especially antibiotics to keep diseases under control in the concentrated breeding spaces. ADM and Bunge controlled 71 % of all soybean crushing. who consumed 70% of all pharmaceutical antibiotics.000 dairy cows. leaked fecal matter into the ground water. it had increased to 40 million pounds. By the end of the 1990's. Four corporations-Smithfield Foods. 35 The ability for corporations to merge and vertically integrate created a corporate concentration never before seen in agriculture. but animals." Most of the foodrelated diseases were caused by contamination of the food. just as Harvard's Goldberg and Davis were developing their ideas on agribusiness. In 1954. American farmers used about 500. 33 Not only waste. giant mega-dairy CAFOs. milk or water from animal fecal matter.and tetracycline were the most commonly used antibiotics on the factory farms. became staggering. And some 80% of the antibiotics were poured directly into the animal feed to make the animals grow faster. By the year 2005. and Cargill. Swift and Hormel-controlled 64% of all pig packing. Two GMO giants. an eighty-fold rise. Swift and National BeefPacking-controlled 84% of all beef packing in the United States.000 pounds of antibiotics a year raising food animals.

Shareholder Value had come to American agriculture with a vengeance. the number of family farmers had been decimated. The traditional farmer had become a near extinct species under the driving pressures of agribusiness and its power to control entire sectors through vertical integration. By the end of the 20 th Century. The United States Department of Agriculture had been established in 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln who called it "the peoples" department. Agribusiness as a sector had become the second most profitable industry in America next to pharmaceuticals. job it created. about half the population of the country at the time. It was not surprising that the Pentagon's National Defense University. including millions to David Rockefeller.ROCKEFELLER AND HARVARD INVENT USA "AGRIBUSINESS" 143 largest food retailing corporations. on the eve of the 2003 Iraq war. Its original mandate had been to serve farmers and their families. issued a paper declaring: "Agribusiness is to the United States what oil is to the Middle Ease'38 Agribusiness had become a strategic weapon in the arsenal of the world's only Superpower. Between 1995 and 2003 American taxpayers paid over $100 billion for USDA crop subsidies.36 By the beginning of the new millennium. corporate farms. controlled a total global market of $649 billion by 2002. 39 Some ten percent of the largest farm groups received 72% of USDA crop subsidies. led by Wal-Mart. The subsidies went not to struggling family farmers. killing an estimated three traditional farm jobs for every new. however. often low-paid. They went overwhelmingly to the giant new agribusiness operators. The giant factory farms also destroyed the viability of traditional farming. with annual domestic sales of well over $400 billionY And the next phase was clearly mergers between the pharmaceutical giants and the agribusiness giants. The US Department of Agriculture or USDA had been transformed into a lobby for agribusiness. More worrisome was the fact that the US Government itself admitted in published reports that its statutory oversight in the . the ardent advocate ofless government subsidies. corporate agribusiness had vertically integrated into a concentration of market power never before experienced even in the trust heyday of the early 1920's.

Our current work was initiated in response to concerns raised by a US Senator in April 2005. We also found that the agency has not taken sufficient actions to strengthen operations in response to findings previously reported by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) in February 1997 and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in September 2000. 40 The last statement implied they would not have undertaken such an inquiry on their own. The powerful Washington lobbyists of agribusiness drafted the Farm Bills that dispersed the funds. P&SP's tracking system could not be relied upon. competition and complex investigations were not being performed. US farm policy from 1933. In January 2006. and deceptive acts and practices. The now powerful forces of the agribusiness lobby scored a major victory in 1996 with passage of the new Farm Bill by the US Congress. and influenced which policies got enforced. unjustly discriminatory. Packers and Stockyards Administration has not established an adequate control structure and environment that allows the agency to oversee and manage its investigative activities for the Packers and Stockyards Programs (P&SP) . as explicitly stated in the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. These material weaknesses should be reported in the agency's next FMFIAreport because they represent essential activities for administering and enforcing the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 (Act). including certain anti~competitive practices..implementing commod- . as well as the appointment of agribusiness-friendly bureaucrats and officials to enforce them. the USDA issued the following report. by idlinglapd.144 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION health and safety of the nation's meatpacking and processing industry was worse than inadequate.. . apparently only in required response to a lone Senator who asked: The Grain Inspection. The Act prohibits unfair. and timely action was not being taken on issues that impact day-to-day activities. granted authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to attempt to balance demand and supply. honored in its breach. It was no accident. during the Great Depression. The 1921 Packers and Stockyards Act had become an empty construct.

was swept away despite overwhelming evidence that agriculture's capacity to produce has consistently exceeded the capacity of markets to absorb the production without resorting to unacceptably low prices. e-coli. the Secretary's authorities were suspended. however. the general level of . diseases once rare in the general population such as salmonella poisioning. sharp price swings were moderated through the use of storage programs and land idling. if not repealed. all were becoming every day events. The costs for the stabilization were relatively modest compared with the costs incurred after 1997. That authority to idle resources. allergies. With the transition away from government programs. after 1996. For the family farmer. Before 1996. This land then transitions . As a report done by Iowa State University concluded: Prices declined because the 1996 farm bill no longer authorized the government to idle land to balance demand and supply.. which every other CEO has authority to do when inventories become excessive. and land values come under pressure until there is less profitability for crop production on the least productive land. When no land is idled. it was expected that market forces would appropriately throttle resource use in agriculture. public health. the epidemic-scale incidence of obesity.41 Few Americans had the slightest idea of what was going on. production increases. The market squeezes out the thinner soils and steeper slopes.ROCKEFELLER AND HARVARD INVENT USA ''AGRIBUSINESS'' 145 ity storage programs.. However. The results were a huge boon for agribusiness in their pursuit of ever-larger land at a cheap price. in the 1996 and 2002 farm bills. enacted during a brief period of economic euphoria in 1996. . The 1996 farm bill. crop prices fall. . temporarily stripped the Secretary of Agriculture of all authority to manage inventories and set the stage for all-out production of the major program crops.. By the mid-decade of the new century. the price was staggering. to another crop or to grazing land. Production decisions were left to the market .. the higher per-unit cost of production areas. establishing marketing quotas for some crops and to encouraging exports of commodities including food relief programs and sales of farm commodities for soft currencies.

"the genetic revolution is leading to an industrial convergence of food.' he went on. the farmer would become a tiny player in the giant global chain." He declared.. fiber and energy businesses. without the pharmaceutical. "will have shrunk from 32% in 1950 to 10% . health."44 He might have added that all this was virtually without government regulation or scientific supervision by neutral scientific research organizations. health and life science segments will be an $8 trillion global industry by 2028. His study calculated that "the traditional agribusiness system. How the gene revolution evolved."43 For Goldberg. Goldberg calculated the addition of entire new sectors created by the latest developments in genetic engineering. That year. it will account for over 80% in 2028. enthusiastically. Goldberg was 77 years old and extremely active. From Green .SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION The stage was set by the end of the 1990's for what Ray Goldberg termed a transformation that he described as "changing our global economy and society more dramatically than any other single event in the history of mankind. Whereas food processing and distribution accounted for half of 1950's value added. which he called "the agri-ceutical system. medicine. The farming sector value added. including GMO creation of pharmaceutical drugs from genetically-engineered plants.. "The addition oflife science (biotechnology-ed."42 By 1998. He mapped out the transformation of world food consolidation thirty years into the future. he organized a new university-wide research group at Harvard to examine how the genetic revolution would affect the global food system.) participants in the new agri-ceutical system will increase total value added in 2028 to over $15 trillion and the farmers' share will shrink even further to 7%:' He proclaimed. sitting on the boards of numerous large agribusiness companies such as ADM and Smithfield Foods and advising the World Bank on agribusiness for the developing world.. The creator of agribusiness was integrating the gene revolution into the agribusiness revolution as the next phase. would again find the Rockefeller Foundation in a central role.

or didn't feed itself. the foundation was in the center of developing the strategy and means for transforming how the planet fed itself. .ROCKEFELLER AND HARVARD INVENT USA "AGRIBUSINESS" 147 Revolution to Gene Revolution.

p.man. Lorimar & Co.org/who/history/ origins.. 254.uk!governmentlpublications/working. January 1971. One of the most detailed critiques of Rockefeller's Green Revolution is made in Harry Cleaver. p. ADC.edu/facstaff/Cleaver/ cleavercontradictions.html. The Origins of the CGJAR. 5. Appendix I: Ford Foundation-A Case Study of the Aims of Foreign Funding". Pacific Research and World Empire Telegram. Maurice Strong. The Origins of the CGIAR. A. UN Food and Agriculture Organization. p. (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research-CGIAR. American Foundations. 9. see Elaine Dewar. For background on the very influential Rockefeller friend.orglwho/history/origins. 6. Implementation and Contingencies. 11..html#3. January 1997.. Biotechnology and Development Monitor. in http://www. No. 34.sovereignty. Mobilizing Science for Global Food Security.orglpetras/english/ford010102. p. A. Toronto. 4.). 19. Parsons. 1994. http://www. Harry Cleaver. utexas. cit. http://www. Fourth External Review of CIMMYT. op. Harry Cleaver. Rome )-SDR/TAC:IAR/97 /9. 3-5. Jeroen van Wijk..cgiar. .P. op.rebelion. Ibid.netlp/sd/ strong. 3. See also Robert Anderson. http://www. New York. 10. November 2003. 9. and Henry Lamb. "Who's for DDT?". Simon Fraser University. 5. Ibid. Aspects ofIndia's Economy September 2003. P. http://les. Rebelion.htm.. Also. "Hybrids Bred for Superior Yields or for Control?". 8. 2.pdf. Maurice Strong: The New Guy in Your Future!.ac. 22 November 1971. op. the Green Revolution and the CGIAR: Intentions.eco. details the role of the Rockefeller Foundation in creation of both CIMMYT and later CGIAR as the larger global agriculture research body to advance the Rockefeller Foundation's growing agribusiness agenda.. For background on the postwar close ties between the Ford Foundation and the CIA during the 1950's and 1960's see James Petras. Time. "The Ford Foundation and the CIA: A Documented Case of Philanthropic Collaboration with the Secret Police".. p.htrnI. cit. Research Unit for Political Economy (R. pp. Ibid. Also CGIAR. 15 December 2001. "Economics and Politics of the World Social Forum. pdf. 9.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Notes 1. Cloak of Green. Mosher. 1966. http://www. 1995. 3.cit:. T. "Philippines: Rebellious Litde Brother". Getting Agriculture Moving.E.U. CGIAR. The Contradictions of the Green Revolution. 7. 11.cgiar.papers_docs/GlobalisationlFoundations%20papers %20Anderson. Harry Cleaver. p.

Debashis Mandai and S. The Evolution of an Industry and a Seminar: Agribusiness Seminar. "Agribusiness". health hazards. focusing mainly on inter-industry relationships and the interconnections between industry and other sectors of the economy.edu/programs/agb/seminar. New York. The document for this reason alone is worth reading." 13. K.S. White Plains. 108. W. Studies in the Structure of the American Economy. "The Evolution of Agribusiness". New York. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 16. 1967. 190-19l.exed. authorities on Indian agriculture summarize the impact of the Green Revolution in India: "The green revolution has not only increased productivity. decline in soil fertility. Ford Foundation. "Precision Farming-the Emerging Concept of Agriculture for Today and Tomorrow". Harvard Business School Executive Education Faculty Interviews. John D. http://www. The discussion in the report of aspects of the Leontief research. Indiscriminate use of pesticides. soil erosion. 25 December 2000. 14.. Harper & Row. pp. cited in Geoffrey Lawrence. 1953. was engaged in a series of quantitative studies of the structure of the American economy. Martin Kohli. New York.html. 33. the Ford Foundation noted the following grant: "Harvard Economic Research Project': In addition to these overall programs. "Leontief and the U.html. The authors. its Rockefeller funding and how it was linked actively with the work of Ray Goldberg and John H. 1973. 2001. Its authorship is disputed.000 was made to support the activities of the Harvard Economic Research Project over a six-year period. irrigation and imbalanced fertilization has threatened sustainability. The Second American Revolution. Equal support was contributed by the Rockefeller Foundation.exed. Leontief. This center. deterioration of environment. Annual Supplement. Davis in creating the model of corporate agribusiness is too incisive to dismiss the full report completely. universalway. Annual Report. p. http://www. 1941-54: Developing a Framework for Measurement. International Science Press Inc.html. Davis.' History of Political Economy. a grant of $240. . Rockefeller III.orglForeign/ silentweapons. W.hbs. but it has also several negative ecological consequences such as depletion of lands. poor sustainability of agricultural lands and degradation of biodiversity. Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars. and much speculation exists as to whether it is fact or fiction. Ghosh.hbs. Current Biography. Pluto Press. 1956. Harvard Business Review. 1956. A fascinating and controversial report of the implementation of the Leontief Harvard Economic Research Project on the Structure of the American Economy is a document titled. Capitalism and the Countryside.edu/faculty/rgoldberg. with attribution to Hartford Van Dyke and to William Cooper. under the direction of Professor Wassily Leontief. Current Science. In its 1956 Annual Report. 1987. http://www. Vol. Leontief and Ray Goldberg.ROCKEFELLER AND HARVARD INVENT USA "AGRIBUSINESS" 149 12. See also Harvard Business School. soil salinization. John H. 15. Sydney.

3l. Corporate hog operations-and their lagoonsThreaten the Financial and Physical health of Family Farms': Sustainable Farming Connection. D. Brian DeVore. 19. pp. 35. 28. Ray Goldberg. James MacDonald et aI. James MacDonald. Also Mark Spitzer. 22.C.. Washington. Factory Farming: The True Costs. 30.. cit.6. pp. 29 October 2004.org. The Genetic Revolution: Transforming our Industry. 34. cit. Nutrition.orglfarming-connection. op. Ibid. 29. Roert M Aduddell. 6-7. See also. 25. op. 23. 33. Cambridge. op. 27. Ibid. "Greasing the Way for Factory Bacon. Growing Farm Size and the Distribution of Farm Payments. US Edition.cit.panna. cit. Global Pesticide Campaigner. D. 31 July 2005. op. 20. pp.C.hfa. cit.. OMB Waters Down Standards on Factory-Farm Runoff. Ibid. op.150 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION 17. March. "Industrial Agriculture and Corporate Power". NRDC. Its Institutions.ombwatch. and Forestry United States Senate.orgliacp. 5-6. http://www. The Humane Farming Association. address to The International Food and Agribusiness . et al.0MB Watch. and Its Functions.. Economic Research Service. Summer 1981. 18. p. op. cit. Washington. p. 36. 24.. Economic Brief No. p. op. 25 March 2000. p. Facts about Pollution from Livestock Farms. The Humane Farming Association. NRDC. Tom Harkin.0MB Watch. Ibid.0MB Watch. The Humane Farming Association. op. Economic Concentration and Structural Change in the Food and Agriculture Sector.I-4. See also Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). op. 32. cit. 15 July 2005. NRDC. Cain. Harvard College. http://www.6. 217. cit. op. "Growing Pains:' The Economist. "Public Policy Toward The Greatest Trust in the World". Tom Harkin. Business History Review.ibiblio. The Economist. 2l. cit.org/article/articleviewI1540. August 2003. United States Departent of Agriculture. cit. 26. and Louis P.. 218. 37.. 28 May 2003. http://www.http://www. 2. 2006. San Rafael California. Prepared by the Democratic Staff of the Committee on Agriculture. The Humane Farming Association.

Agribusiness Group Paper National Defense University. 38. Northeast Region. Col.htm#. 44. in http://www. January 2005.cit. http://www. . Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture Iowa State University. op. Ray Goldberg. p. Eddie Coleman. Chicago. 26 June 2000. Toward a Global Food and Agriculture Policy. 41. Goldberg founded and headed the lAMA as well as holding seats on the boards of agribusiness giants Archer Daniels Midland. p. January 2006. 1-2. Packers and Stockyards Administration's Management and Oversight of the Packers and Stockyards Programs. He practiced what he preached. Ray Goldberg. cit.edu/icaf/industry/IS2003/papersl 20030/020Agribusiness.. Smithfield Foods and DuPont Pioneer HiBred. U.iastate. Also see PR Newswire. Says Harvard Professor Dr. Agriceuticals: The Most Important Economic Event in our Lifetime. Grain Inspection. p.ndu.C.. p. 42. pp.S.leopold. 2.pdf. US Army. Ibid. 2003. op. Department of Agriculture. Ibid. 1. Tom Harkin. 43. 2. 39. Report No. 3. The Genetic Revolution. Office of Inspector General. 40. Washington D.ROCKEFELLER AND HARVARD INVENT USA "AGRIBUSINESS" 151 Management Association (lAMA). 8 December 1999. 30601-01-Hy.edu/ pubslstaff/policy/globalag.

"2 Rockefeller Foundation funds provided the essential catalyst for the worldwide scientific research and development which would lead to the creation of genetically modified plants. At the time they termed it a "major. the Trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation approved what was seen at the time as a 10-15 year program to apply new molecular-biological . CHAPTER "Food is power! We use it to change behavior. In December 1984. a group of hand-picked advisers from the Foundation urged its management to devote future resources to the application of molecular biology for plant breeding.8 Food is Power . In 1982. former us Assistant Secretary ofAgriculture 1 I Capturing the Golden Rice Bowl n 1985. long-term commitment to plant genetic engineering. We do not apologize. and several hundred million indirectly.. the Rockefellers would spend well over $100 million of foundation monies directly. the Rockefeller Foundation initiated the first large-scale research into the possibility of genetically engineering plants for commercial use. to catalyze and propagate research on the development of genetic engineering and its application to transform world food production. Over the following two decades.. United Nations World Food Program. Executive Director." C(ltherine Bertini. Some may call that bribery. the Gene Revolution. it was a very big issue in their strategic plans. 3 Clearly.

The genetic engineering initiative of the Rockefeller Foundation was no spur of the moment decision.. the foundation scientists developed the idea of molecular biology from .. Their largesse in giving funds to scientific research projects gained the foundation enormous influence over the direction of science during the Great Depression by the mere fact they had funds to dispense to leading scientific researchers at a time of acute scarcity. 1984 was the year Ronald Reagan was re-elected to a second term with what he saw as a strong popular mandate to press ahead with his New Right economic agenda of privatization and deregulation. Rockefeller and others more than a decade earlier. the Rockefeller Foundation had handed out an impressive $90 million in grants to support the creation of the newfield of molecular biology. it began to recruit chemists and physicists to foster the invention of a new science discipline. the world food market. 153 techniques to the breeding of rice. the dietary staple of a majority of the planet's population. was a physicist. The "New Eugenics": Reductio ad Absurdum . along the lines that had been spelled out by John D. The time was propitious to initiate a dramatic shift in the future control of the world food supply. From 1932 to 1957. which it named molecular biology to differentiate it from classical biology.FOOD IS POWER .4 Molecular biology and the attendant work with genes was a Rockefeller Foundation creation in every sense of the word. Warren Weaver. During the late 1930's. Borrowing generously from their work in race eugenics. The foundation developed molecular biology as a discipline partly to deflect and blunt growing social criticism of its racist eugenics. Nazi Germany had given eugenics a "bad name:' The Rockefeller Foundation's President during the 1930's. as the foundation was still deeply involved in funding eugenics in the Third Reich. by extension. He and Max Mason headed the foundation's new biology program.. American agribusiness had reached a major threshold in terms of its ability to influence USDA agricultural policy and. It was the culmination of the research it had funded since the 1930's..

MacLeod and McCarty identified what appeared to be the transmission of a gene from one bacterial cell to another.e. noted at the time with great excitement. Weaver first coined the term. how he thinks. Their colleague.. 6 During World War II. geneticist Theodore Dobzhansky. Apart from the fascination of gaining some knowledge of the nature of the mind-brain-body relationship. who concluded from his experiments. According to Warren Weaver: [T)he tools are now available for discovering. The people in and around the Rockefeller institutions saw it as the ultimate means of social control and social engineering. learns. eugenics. 5 It seemed clear in 1932." The idea had been promoted during the 1920's by Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research biologist Jacques Loeb. that echinoderm larvae could be chemically stimulated to develop in the absence of fertilization. Only thus may we gain information about our behavior of the sort that can lead to wise and beneficial control. "we are dealing with authentic cases of inductions of specific mutations by specific treatments-a feat which geneticists have vainly tried to accomplish in higher organisms:'Already in 1941. on the most disciplined and precise level of molecular actions.154 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION the fundamental assumption that almost all human problems could be "solved" by genetic and chemical manipulations. remembers. how man's central nervous system really operates. Rockefeller scientists were laying the foundations for their . when the Rockefeller Foundation launched its quarter-century program in that area. the practical values in such studies are potentially enormous. and that science would eventually come to control the fundamental processes of biology. that the biological and medical sciences were ready "for a friendly invasion by the physical sciences".. In the 1938 Annual Report of the Rockefeller Foundation. Weaver and the Rockefeller Foundation were in the center of all international research in molecular biology.) scientists Avery. later prominent researcher at the Rockefeller University. . Three Rockefeller Institute (today Rockefeller University-w. and forgets . "molecular biology" to describe their support for research to apply techniques of symbolic logic and other scientific disciplines to make biology "more scientific.

. this molecule is stable in a test tube.. and representatives from government agencies. who organized the first meeting between leading university ecologists and molecular biologists. 7 Notably. Many molecular biologists certainly "knew" facts . gene flow. "Who pays the Piper picks the tune. 155 later development of genetically modified organisms and the Gene Revolution. The Rockefeller methodology was an extension of the belief that a complex life form cold be reduced to a basic building bloc or "elementary seed. Prof. and to the method of Charles Darwin. recombination. Philip Regal. the Rockefeller-funded genetic scientists in the new field of molecular biology congregated at the same Cold Spring Harbor site of the Eugenics Records Office. at a minimum by mutation. or "destabilized" if one prefers. This would make it extremely difficult or even impossible to have a true genetic engineering. It was of little interest to Weaver and others at the Rockefeller Foundation that scientific reductionism had been thoroughly refuted. to hold major scientific symposiums on the "genetics of micro-organisms" beginning in 1946 just after the war's end. defined the flaw of the molecular biologists' reductionism: In the case of DNA. But it is not stable in populations of reproducing organisms. genetic engineers in industry." They had a social agenda and their reductionist genetics supported that agenda.' from which all traits of the life form could be deduced. at the Cold Spring Harbor Banbury Center in August 1984.FOOD IS POWER . DNA is modified. and natural selection. financed by Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations. One scientist critical of the risks of GMO research. One cannot reduce the behavior of DNA in living organisms to its chemical properties in a test tube! In living systems. namely that living creatures were machines whose only goal was genetic replication-a matter of chemistry and statistics. 8 Reducing Life Risks entailed weren't interesting to the Rockefeller group. Their methodology went back to what was termed "reductionism" by Rene Descartes. in the sense of which it had been spoken.

who were masquerading in the 1980's as geneticists. The foundation's research goal was to find ways to reduce the infinite complexities of life to simple."12 Just how they would correct such social problems would be kept under wraps for decades. More likely than not. and to use that information. whereas a given DNA molecule would be stable in a test tube. but they were not a working part of their professional consciousness. Regal described the Rockefeller visioh: . to The Rockefeller Foundation's molecular biology and their genetics work was consciously based on that fundamental scientific error. as Philip Regal described it. bad science if need be." But nature was far more complex than a digital computer. Professor Brian Goodwin. many of the younger generation of biologists and scientists receiving Rockefeller research grants were blissfully unaware that eugenics and genetics were in any way related. but no scientist was able to generate an organism from a genetic program. it became highly unstable in living organisms. 9 Once they had made the idea popular in US science that organisms were reduced to genes. interacting in extremely non-linear and complex ways. they could conclude that organisms had no inherent nature. Life was not a binary computer program. In one example pointed to by biologists.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION about mutation and natural selection as abstract facts. reductionism. pointed out. The promoters of the new molecular biology at the foundation were determined to map the structure of the gene. Their scientists used the term "genetic programming" as a metaphor for what happens in a computer."ll Such details were of no interest to the Rockefeller eugenicists. Warren Weaver was intent on using science. and the dollars all too often had the name and strings of the Rockefeller Foundation attached. It was marvellously non-linear and complex as traditional biologists had attested for centuries. As one British biologist. deterministic and predictive models. They simply scrambled for scarce research dollars. to shape the world into the Rockefeller model. poverty. hunger and political instability. "You need to know more than gene products in order to explain the emergence of shape and form in organisms. "to correct social and moral problems including crime. Anything was "fair game.

a retired Senior Lecturer of the University of Auckland. It learned to use optimistic terms of discourse that brought grants and status. The project was in the general spirit of Bacon's New Atlantis and Enlightenment visions of a trouble-free society based on mastery of nature's laws and scientific/technological progress. and economic connections to promote the idea that society should wait for scientific inventions to solve its problems. that had little traditional knowledge of living organisms and of communities of organisms. doomed to be even more misleading:' Mann noted: The system of a living cell. and genes. Patience..14 One biologist. should at all proceed. obviously. and that tampering with the economic and political systems would not be necessary. It shared utopian ideals.•• 157 From the perspective of a theory reductionist. Robert Mann. 13 During the 1970's. The Rockefeller Foundation used its funds and considerable social. but the few major . owing to the incalculability of the possible dangers to life on the planet and the risk of an ecological accident. is incomparably more complex than a nuclear reactor. Thus the Rockefeller Foundation made a major commitment to using its connections and resources to promote a philosophy of eugenics. political. brains. some others may yield only the desired outcome. . By 1973. even if no viruses or foreign plasm ids (let alone prions) are tossed in. emphasised that there was indeed a problem with how Rockefeller reductionist simplification ignored possible social risks: "Attempts at risk analysis for Genetic Engineering are. . Mason and Weaver helped create a network of what would one day be called molecular biologists. and more investment in reductionist research would bring trouble-free solutions to social and economic problems. There is no prospect of imagining most of the ways it can go badly wrong . later referred to as genetic engineering. Dr. research should be voluntarily ceased in the interest of mankind.FOOD IS POWER . molecular biologists in the United States intensely debated the issue of whether recombinant DNA research. It shared a faith in theory reductionism and in determinism. or whether. it was logical that social problems would reduce to simple biological problems that could be corrected through chemical manipulations of soils. the essential techniques of genetic engineering had been developed in the laboratory. Many gene-splicings come to naught..

" Prof. 18 Gene transformation usually required a tissue culture or regeneration of an intact plant from a single cell that had been treated .combining of genes from different organisms was termed recombinant DNA or rONA. bovine genes into tomatoes. According to conventional wisdom. a riddle we may have to answer in order to survive: what can be done to slow or stop the transfer of antibiotic resistance genes. Bacillus thuringiensis.. [on the contrary] there is no such thing as a "safe" plasmid . Godlike.. into the genome of a corn variety to protect it from the European Corn Borer pest. other pests are likely to evolve resistance uickly unless effective countermeasures are designed and implemented soon. But the gene jockeys claim they can. depicted . Abigail Salyers warned in the prestigious Microbiological Review: [A]re small pieces of DNA called plasmids. 16 «Among the biological materials used for GE.. etc. dominate the assessment so as to rule out this approach to science and life. .SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION mishaps. as with nuclear power. unlike the longstanding methods of creating plant hybrids by cross-breeding two varieties of the same plant to produce a new variety with specific traits. IS Mann sounded the alarm: one of the countless scientific warnings buried by the powerful agribusiness propaganda machine that stood with the Rockefeller Foundation behind genetically engineered organisms. a plasmid used to introduce a gene into a genetically engineered micro-organism can be rendered non -transmissible .. as simple predictable carriers of engineered genes. involved introducing foreign DNA into a given plant. Its ability to combat specific insects was questionable however.. foresee the evolutionary results of their artificial transposings of human genes into sheep.Bt had been registered as a pesticide. or Bt. An example was the creation of GE sweet corn or Bt sweet corn.. With millions of hectares of Bt toxinproducing transgenic plants grown yearly.. One 1999 scientific report warned: Evolution of resistance by pests is the most serious threat to the continued efficacy of Bt toxins . 17 The heart of genetic engineering of plants.. It was made by inserting a gene from a soil bacterium. The . In 1961.

Yet.' she went on to say that "the process is not at all precise. Contrary to what you are told by pro-GMO scientists. stressed that "entirely new genes and combinations of genes are made in the laboratory and inserted into the genomes of organisms to make genetically modified organisms. . In order to implant a foreign gene into a plant cell. genetic engineering of plants bypassed sexual reproduction entirely. a "Taxi" or "Gene cannon.. The gene cannon had been developed in 1987 at Cornell University by John Sanford. head of the London Institute of Science in Society. It was self evident they would have the world believe that risks were minimal. Mae-Wan Ho. short for bio-ballistics."20 Neither the Rockefeller Foundation nor the scientists it funded. no serious scientific consensus existed within America's research laboratories on the dangers of releasing genetically modified plants into a natural environment. amid heated debate about the potential risks of misuse of the new technology.' a method known also as biolistics. had any apparent interest in examining such risks.FOOD IS POWER . Unlike the creation of plant or animal hybrids. and threatens all life on Earth."19 Biologist Dr. and hence was not limited by their species barriers. with entirely unpredictable consequences.. 159 with hormones or antibiotics and forced to undergo abnormal development. nor the GMO agribusiness they worked with. It is uncontrollable and unreliable. about a deadly disease which causes rapid. In 1984. and typically ends up damaging and scrambling the host genome. in addition to a genetically engineered bacteria (Agrobacterium tumefaciens).2 1 The first genes had been spliced in 1973 and the recombinant gene technique spread widely among research labs. so that the natural species barriers could be "jumped. The term was drawn from science-fiction writer Michael Crichton's 1968 novel. The Andromeda Strain. There was intense scientific concern about the risk of a so-called "Andromeda Strain" scenario of an escaping mutating species. fatal clotting of the blood. despite the fact that very significant doubts persisted. the Rockefeller Foundation made the decision to devote major global funding to the genetic modification process.

Rockefeller's planners had little trouble interesting major companies to join in with them in the new experiments in genetic engineering. By 1987. as projected world population growth should add billions of new hungry mouths to be fed.160 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION One very important effect of the Reagan deregulation revolution on the field of molecular biology in the 1980's was that decisions on safety or risks made until then by relatively independent Government agencies were increasingly put in the hands of private companies who saw major gains in advancing the emerging potentials of biotechnology. Initially. Mapping the Rice Genome In 1984. the International Program on Rice Biotechnology (IPRB). Publicly. The seeds of the Gene Revolution were being planted very carefully. into some of the world's leading research labs. there existed no experimental evidence to justify that decision. the Foundation decided to launch its comprehensive program to map the rice genome using new molecular-based techniques and advances in computing power. "Golden Rice" and Black Lies The decision to develop a genetically-modified variety of rice was a master stroke of public relations on the part of the Rockefeller Foundation and its supporters within the scientific and political establishment. Over the next 17 years. they announced that their huge research effort was an attempt to deal with world hunger in coming decades. by 1989 it was spending an additional $54 million a year-amounting to more than $540 million over the following decade-on "training and capacity building" to disseminate the new developments in rice genetic modification. the foundation spent an impressive $105 millions of its own money in developing and spreading genetically modified rice around the world. At the time. the Foundation funded 46 science labs across the industrialized world. Furthermore. they were spending more than $5 million . The research monies were channelled through a new entity they created.

It was a brilliant propaganda ploy. The foundation financed the training of hundreds of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows around the world to create the scientific infrastructure for the later commercial proliferation of genetically modified organisms. primarily by China and India. Rice was also a staple in West Africa. 22 Soon after the program started. according to some participants. mapping the rice genome.FOOD IS POWER . 161 a year on the rice gene project. and has grown in a wide variety of different environments.4 billion people. As one researcher pointed out. and where it made up 80% of people's daily calories.' remarked the IRRI's Deputy Director for Research.000 years. The choice of rice to begin the Rockefeller's gene revolution was a careful one. "Without the support of the Rockefeller Foundation it would have been almost impossible for us to build this capability. It had been domesticated and developed by local farmers over a period of at least 12. a strong sense of belonging. The top five scientific researchers at the important Rockefeller-funded Philippine International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) were all Rockefellerfunded doctors. 23 Rice was synonymous with food security for most of Asia. the Rockefeller's International Program on Rice Biotechnology (IPRB) decided to concentrate efforts ·on the creation of a variety of rice which allegedly would address Vitamin A deficiency in undernourished children in the developing world. It helped to create a public perception that genetic scientists were diligently working to solve problems of world hunger and malnourishment. The grants also went to train a network of international scientists in mastering the worldview of the Rockefeller Foundation's worldview. regarding the role of genetic engineering of plants and the future of humankind. They developed an elite fraternity and cultivated. where over 90% of the global rice harvest was produced. the Caribbean and tropical regions of Latin America.. Among the recipients of Rockefeller largesse were the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich and the Center for Applied Biosciences at Freiburg University in Germany. . rice is the staple food for more than 2. Rice farmers had developed varieties of rice to . The only problem was that it was a deliberate deception.

IRRI had been used by the backers of the Green Revolution to gather control of the irreplaceable seed treasure of Asia's rice varieties. after its creation in 1960 by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations during the Green Revolution in Asia. That rice was then pressed on Asian countries by the US Government demanding that Asian countries remove "unfair trade barriers" to US rice imports. and grow in every climate imaginable. They had created an incredible biological diversity with over 140. irrigation. This drew Asia's peasantry into the vortex of the world trade system and the global market for fertilizer. resist pests. It was not surprising then." The IRRI was put under the umbrella of the Consultative Group of International Agricultural Research. A prime target of the foundation's Green Revolution had been Asian rice production. the World Bank. with a gene bank containing more than one-fifth of the world's rice varieties. held the key to Asia's rice seed bank. that the IRRI. high-yielding seeds. They banked every significant rice variety known. became the prime vehicle to proliferate the Rockefeller Foundation's new gene revolution in rice. all without the help of biotechnology. under the ruse that they would thereby be "protected. whose political agenda was defined by Washington policy. The core driver of that earlier rice revolution had been the Philippines-based Rockefeller Foundation-created International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) . also with Rockefeller Foundation funding. CGIAR operated out of the World Bank headquarters in Washington. Over three-quarters of the American rice genetic makeup or germplasm came originally from the IRRI seed bank. credit and marketing schemes packaged for them by Western agribusiness.24 The Rockefeller Foundation had its eyes on Asia's rice bowl well before the 1984 IPRB project on rice. CGIAR. pesticides.000 varieties. with the so-called HighYielding Varieties. 25 In this manner. mechanisation. CGIAR was the same agency which also controlled the pre-war Iraqi seed bank. The Green Revolution process had significantly destroyed the rich rice diversity over a period of thirty years. .162 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION withstand droughts.

UN statistics indicated that perhaps 100 to 140 million children worldwide had some form of Vitamin A deficiency. It meant that agribusiness companies were still free to take and patent them. . The Foundation's propagandists argued that lack of Vitamin A was a major cause of blindness and death in newborn infants in developing countries. The World Trade Organization. once in the labs of Monsanto or the other biotech giants. initially held in trust for the native farmers of the region. It demanded that all the genetic resources held by the CG IAR system (of which IRRI is part) remain outside the rules. Golden Rice became the symbol. Their grants financed major work in the area by.• IRRI then became the mechanism for allowing major international agribusiness giants like Syngenta or Monsanto to illegally take the seeds from the IRRI seed bank. among others. It was a human interest story of prime emotional attraction to promote acceptance of the controversial new genetically modified plants and crops. The introduction of genetically modified rice would open the prospect of directly controlling the rice seeds. and patented as exclusive intellectual property of the biotech company. 26 Using the IRRI resources as its center. made a tiny alteration in the original text. In 1993. and the demonstration of the promise of genetic engineering. the rallying flag. or 40% of the world's unique food crop germ-plasm held in gene banks. and among them 250. the basic food staple . That affected half a million seed accessions. created in 1994 out of the GATT Uruguay Round. the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. a Convention on Biological Diversity under the UN was agreed upon to control the theft of such seed resources of the developing world.000 to 500. however.FOOD IS POWER . introduced a radical new Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) permitting multinationals to patent plant and other life forms for the first time. would be modified genetically. Washington. even though the promise was based on black lies and deliberate deception. The seeds. Rockefeller financing for Vitamin-A-enhanced rice became the prime focus of the IPRB research by the beginning of the 1990's.000 went blind.

27 The purpose of ISAAA was. the foundation and its agribusiness collaborators left nothing to chance or to the vagaries of the free markets. in their own words. In their effort to take over this huge rice market with genetically modified seeds. That in part owed to the low income of rice regions and their peasants. In 1991. to "contribute to poverty alleviation in developing countries by increasing crop productivity and incomes. could only be done by the use of biotechnology. But the Foundation was not alone in backing ISAAA. Dr. particularly among resource-poor farmers. AgrEvo (Aventis Crop Science) and the US State Department's USAID. and in part to the fact that rice had proven extremely difficult to hybridize. rice had been ignored by the multinational agribusiness seed companies. Novartis (Syngenta)."28 The only hitch in the deal was that this formidable task.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION of 2. the USA) and the developing countries. according to their framework. the Rockefeller Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund created a new organization. Prior to the gene revolution. To create those partnerships. headed by the Rockefeller Foundation's Mexican Green Revolutionary and head of the CIMMYT or International Center for Wheat and Maize Improvement. ISAAA set up technol- .4 billion people. Farmer-saved seed accounted for more than 80% of Asian rice seed. intent on proliferating gene plants in developing countries. It had been created and put into motion almost a full decade before it was clear that the Rockefeller Foundation's Golden Rice development was even feasible. The ISAAA was merely a platform to proliferate genetically engineered plants in target developing sector countries. Their goal was to "create global partnerships" between the agribusiness biotech giants of the industrialized countries (notably. the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). Clive James. and to bring about more sustainable agricultural development in a safer global environment. It was from its outset. The ISAAA was also backed financially by biotech agribusiness corporations such as Monsanto.

Indian biodiversity campaigner. Brazil. geopolitics presented certain constants.. just as Henry Kissinger compiled a list of 13 "priority" developing countries for US Government depopulation policies in his NSSM 200 strategy document of 1974. diagnostics or genetic engineering. pointed out in a stinging critique of the Rockefeller Foundation Golden Rice promotion that. and Zimbabwe in Africa. the Philippines. The list of 12 countries included Indonesia. Kenya. together with a gene of a bacterium. has said that Vitamin A rice is necessary for the poor in Asia because "we cannot reach very many of the malnourished in the world with pillS. 30 By 2000. and Argentina. The problem was not lack of natural foods containing Vitamin A. Costa Rica. 29 Interestingly enough. Now people could ostensibly get their daily bowl of rice and prevent blindness and other manifestations of Vitamin A deficiency in their children at the same time. Egypt. Because the beta-carotene (or pro-Vitamin A) which produced Vitamin A inside the body colored the rice grain orange. "the first deficiency of genetic engineering rice to produce Vitamin A is the eclipsing of alternative sources of vitamin A': Per Pinstripe Anderson. and Mexico in Latin America. Thailand. it was dubbed "Golden Rice" -another brilliant marketing stroke as everyone covets gold in whatever form. but rather not enough access to those other natural sources of Vitamin A."31 . head of the International Rice Research Institute. Children in Asia and the rest of the world had been receiving Vitamin A from other sources for centuries. ogy transfer projects covering the topics of tissue culture. Significantly. Indeed. the ISAAA also developed a priority target list for the introduction of genetically engineered plants and crops. Dr. and Vietnam in Asia. Malaysia.FOOD IS POWER • . half of the ISAAA priority countries overlapped with Kissinger's geopolitical targets of seventeen years prior. the Rockefeller Foundation and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology announced that they had successfully taken two genes from a daffodil. Vandana Shiva. and built it into the rice DNA in order to produce what they called pro-Vitamin A or beta-carotene rice.

chicken. 33 Moreover. butter. Shiva that the public relations uses of golden rice have gone too far. and to various fortified foods and vitamin supplements.."35 Maybe the "public relations uses" had gone too far. could lead to permanent brain damage and other harmful effects.. just to get the required minimum intake of Vitamin A. meat. One estimate was that an average Asian would have to eat 9 kilograms of cooked rice daily. egg yolk.."32 Not mentioned in Rockefeller Foundation press releases. Rather it provides an excellent complement to fruits. A typical daily ration in Asia of 300 grams rice would provide only 8% of his daily reqlIirement. the quantity of rice which a person would have to consume daily to meet the full quota of Vitamin A was staggering." He added: "I agree with Dr. The Rockefeller Foundation announced in 2000 that it was turning the results of its years of rice research over to the public. In fact. AstraZeneca.166 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Shiva pointed out. later part of the Swiss Syngenta Company. Beta-carotene. announced in May 2000 that it had acquired exclusive rights to commercialize Golden Rice. milk. which is a genetically . they shrewdly turned it over to the agribusiness biotechnology giants. In 1999. and not humanly possible. spinach. then-President Bill Clinton declared. but the campaign to proliferate genetically-modified Golden Rice had obviously not gone far enough for those behind the Rockefeller Foundation's gene revolution. Vitamin A is provided by liver. carrot. vegetables and animal products in diets. Golden Rice gave the genetic engineering biotech industry a huge propaganda tool. pumpkin. "there are many alternatives to pills for Vitamin A supply.34 The Rockefeller Foundation's President Gordon Conway sheepishly responded to these criticisms in a press release: "First it should be stated that we do not consider golden rice to be the solution to the vitamin A deficiency problem. "If we could get more of this golden rice. The UK firm. in infants. doctors and scientists knew that large quantities of Vitamin A could in fact lead to "hypervitaminosis:' or Vitamin A toxicity which. mango . the Vitamin A precursor is provided by dark green leafy vegetables.

But it was a myth in the hands of a powerful mythmaker. One very prominent medical expert. out to the developing world... CGIAR. who worked on genetic engineering of seeds for the Swiss Syngenta Seeds. Dr.. "Seeking a technological food fix for world hunger may be . It was called the World Trade Organization. the main holder of the Golden Rice patents... "If anyone tells you that GM is going to feed the world. Steven Smith. a new organization became indispensable. people that are malnourished and dying. Richard Horton. modified strain of rice especially rich in vitamin A."38 Few listened. For that. agribusiness and the backers of the gene revolution were ready for the next giant step: the consolidation of global control over humankind's food supply. An insider in the world of biotechnology.FOOD IS POWER .000 lives a day. tell them that it is not . declared shortly before his death in June 2003."36 Syngenta and also Monsanto licensed patents on Golden Rice claiming that they would allow the technology to "be made available free of charge for humanitarian uses in any developing nation:'3? The criticism and skepticism about the wisdom of turning our basic food staples over to the gene doctors and agribusiness giants grew weaker as the propaganda machine of the Rockefeller Foundation and the agribusiness lobby went into high gear.. the most commercially malevolent wild goose chase of the new century. The revolution proceeded. . To feed the world takes political and financial will-it's not about production and distribution:'39 The Rockefeller Foundation claim about feeding the world with genetically modified organisms was just a myth. editor of the British medical journal The Lancet. IRRI and the direct funding of the Rockefeller Foundation. it could save 4.. said. With an elaborate international structure for proliferating the seeds of the gene revolution through ISAAA.

articlesarchive. 18-22. pdf. The Biotheoretical Gathering. 8. 7.net/we-can -change-the-world. 14 November 2000. Philip J.edu/ -pregal! GEhistory. U. We Can Change the World. Bertini. G. is a former Confidential Assistant to New York State Governor Nelson Rockefeller and a member of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission. was created by former Rockefeller Foundation agronomist.quotes..H. where they invented techniques and worked on traits important for genetic improvement of rice-skills and knowledge which they then brought back home. cited in Famous Quotes and Quotations about UN.htm. To help make sure the benefits of this powerful new technology would be available to poor farmers and consumers. Toenniessen. Regal. 3. . Transdisciplinary Authority and the Incipient Legitimation ofMolecular Biology in the 1930s: New Perspectives on the Historical Sociology of Science. committed roughly half of its agricultural funding to an international program on rice biotechnology. in 1986.ca/quotes_aboutlun. 6.pdf.html. Toenniessen. Toenniessen et aI. Catherine Bertini. the Rockefeller Foundation. http://www.N.e. The primary objective of this program was to build rice biotechnology capacity in Asia. Beijng. creator of the first Green Revolution.cbs. Sci.rockfound. Cited in Robert Bruce Baird.government.33. September 1995. p. ibid. Part I. The World Food Prize. Pnina Abir-Am. http://www. 18 July 1999. beginning in 1985. 21.rockfound. Edmonds Institute. p.. 4. 196. Part II. interestingly. Hist.168 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Notes 1." 3. pp. Vitamin A Deficiency and Golden Rice: The Role of the Rockefeller Foundation. China. the director of Food Security at the Rockefeller Foundation described his work as follows: "In the early 1980s. http://www. The much-honored civil servant and winner of World Food Prize in 2003. advances in plant molecular biology offered the promise of achieving genetic improvements in crops that could not be accomplished with conventional plant breeding. 1987. The Rockefeller Foundation's International Program on Rice Biotechnology. O'Toole. however. Annual Review of Genetics. Vol. umn.orgllibrary/ 111400ght. 2. and an important part of it was funding the training of Asian scientists at advanced Western laboratories. http://www. 5. A Brief History of Biotechnology Risk: The Engineering Ideal in Biology. For the most part.orgllibrary/O 1rice_bio. J.1987. 25:1-70. http://www. such advances in crop biotechnology were not being applied to rice or other food crops of primary importance in developing countries. Joshua Lederberg. Norman Borlaug. 186. p. Rockefeller Foundation archives. Gary H. Joshua Lederberg. 4th World Conference on Women.liberty-tree. "The Impact of Basic Research in Genetic RecombinationA Personal Account".

alternativescience. cit. Let me just describe some of the consequences of genetic reductionism. of the community. Now. if you like. Philip J. cit. Richard Milton. species are natural kinds.FOOD IS POWER . 13. Now.." 12. http://www. I think they are all related ... See also. of ecosystems. they are really like the elements. Genes are defined by context.. but they have the same conceptual status. of the biosphere. in Darwinism. The Darwinian theory makes it legitimate to shunt genes around from anyone species to any other species: since species don't have 'natures'. say.. We are arguing that. op. Metaphysics in Genetic Engineering: 2. Goodwin explains his concerns about genetic or biological reductionism in the interview: "We currently experience crises of health.htm.psrast. Now. 11. 6-8. op. Regal adds. They say that is no different to what is happening in evolution . it was logical that social problems would reduce to simple biological problems that could be corrected through chemical manipulations of . .I'm by no means against biotechnology. I think that there are the same problems that arise with respect to creation of transgenics. Once you scale something up to a particular level you are into a totally different scene. I don't mean literally. The Engineering Ideal in Biology. Once you've got organisms reduced to genes. "from the perspective of a theory reductionist. 9. in our theory of evolution. gold has a certain nature. Biology contributes to these crises by failing to give us adequate conceptual understanding of life and wholes. and creating new combinations of genes by sexual recombination within species. and the reason is because of the utter unpredictability of the consequences of transferring a gene from one species to another. Regal.. you change the activity of the gene. 1996. and it's all because of genetic reductionism .. Richard Milton. http://www. All they have done is pass the survival test. Genes are not stable bits of information that can be shunted around and express themselves independently of context. of the environment.org/pjrbiosafety... March/April 1996. that is moving genes across species boundaries. which arise as a result of accidents. they don't have a nature. I just think that it is something that we have to use with enormous caution in its application. GenEthics News. 10.Regal. paper prepared for International Center for Human and Public Affairs. Shattering the Myths of Darwinism.htm. then organisms have no inherent natures. Philip Regal. David King. because they're historical individuals. cit. we can manipulate them in any way and create new organisms that survive in our culture.2 Utopianism. If you change the context. Human beings have a nature. pp. a sea urchin of a particular species has a nature. Philip J. Every gene depends upon its context. So this is why you get people saying that there is really no difference between the creation of transgenic organisms.com/ shattering-the-myths-of-darwinism. "An Interview with Professor Brian Goodwin".. op. Buenos Aires. We need stringent safety protocols.

Agricultural Sciences. Institute of Science in Society. Prast. Philip J. . "Genetic Mapping of Resistance to Bacillus Thuringiensis Toxins in Diamondback Moth Using Biphasic Linkage Analysis. http://www. op. and that tampering with the economic and political systems would not be necessary. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 19 November 1999. July 1999. brains. and economic connections to promote the idea that society should wait for scientific inventions to solve its problems. Mae-Wan Ho. Eamon 1994.htm. The Rockefeller Foundation used its funds and considerable social. op. 18. The project was in the general spirit of Bacon's New Atlantis and Enlightenment visions of a trouble-free society based on mastery of nature's laws and scientific/technological progress (e.edu/-pregaIlGEhistory. Dennis Normile.g. that had little traditional knowledge of living organisms and of communities of organisms. Abigail Salyers.htm. USA". 19. It shared a faith in theory reductionism and in determinism. political. David G. and more investment in reductionist research would bring trouble-free solutions to social and economic problems.orglselfshgen.. FAQ on Genetic Engineering. It learned to use optimistic terms of discourse that brought grants and status.gene. Mason and Weaver helped create a network of what would one day be called molecular biologists. 21. Mann adds the clear warning: "The hazards of GE rival even nuclear war. such scenarios will not be thought of. cit. "Rockefeller to End Network After 15 Years of Success". uklFAQ. Science.cbs. Thus the Rockefeller Foundation made a major commitment to using its connections and resources to promote a philosophy of eugenics.unobeserver. A Brief History of Biotechnology Risk Debates and Policies in the United States. Regal. Patience.com. but it is suspected that some artificial genetic manipulations create the potential to derange the biosphere for longer than any civilisation could survive.i -sis. 22.ch/genet/2000/ Feb/msg00005. Philip J. http:// www. Philip J. and genes. et aI. 1468-1469. 17. 18 July 1999. Puncturing the GM Myths. 15. Mcknight 1992):' 14. Heckel. in http://www.psrast. Robert Mann. If only enthusiasts are consulted in appraisal of GE proposals. "The Selfish Commercial Gene". It shared utopian ideals. Robert Mann.html. Mae-Wan Ho. cited in Dr. Biology is so much more complex than technology that we should not pretend we can imagine all the horror scenarios. Regal. Dr. cit. php. pp. http://www.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION soils. 4 August 2004. 20.cit. Regal.org.umn. op." 16. reprinted in ww.

in http://www.grain.rockfound.. "Protecting the Heritage of Rice Biodiversity': GeoJournal March 1995. Jackson.Vandana Shiva. http://www. where he walked through the fields with local farmers. the World Bank authors stated. 31. 30. 14 November 2000.4.orgllibrary/111400ght.netlp/sd/strong. he visited CIMMYT in Mexico. 14 February 2000. GRAIN.prn2. "Genentech Preys on the Paddy Field". The Rockefeller Foundation. 15.Wolfensohn praised the CGIAR's "extraordinary achievements" and recalled that one of his first lessons in development economics was at the hands of his colleagues in the CGIAR. 29. http://www. Ibid. http://www. pdf. 26. Vol. See also Anna-Rosa Martinez I. Ibid.org/publications/ reports/isaaa.html.org/h tml/ cgiar/publications/ icw98/ icw98sop. The Crucible II Group. Toenniessen. "Vitamin A Deficiency and Golden Rice: The Role of the Rockefeller Foundation". and became a Trustee of ·the Rockefeller Foundation which provided funds for the UN Stockholm Earth Summit in 1972. 1998.usm. November 1996.net/blind_rice. Evoking this fond memory. January 1997. Wolfensohn formally opened ICW98 . Maurice Strong had worked with David Rockefeller and the family since 1947. Gary H. Prat. worldbank. which notes.htm. No. 1996. October 2000. June 1998.S.idrc. 28. very strong and very deep feeling" for the CGIAR. "Caring for the Biodiversity of Tropical Rice Ecosystems". Ibid. 25. As a board member of the Rockefeller Foundation thirty years ago.html. 24. Genetically Engineered Vitamin 'If' Rice: A Blind Approach to Blindness Prevention. In its 1998 report. Seeding Solutions: Volume 1: Policy Options for Genetic Resources. pp 267-274. Mr. "ISAAA in Asia: Promoting Corporate Profits in the Name of the Poor". IRRI.sovereignty. "World Bank President James D. "ADRAC . Wolfensohn expressed his "very.• 171 23. Razak Lajis.html. Quoted in K. "Vitamin A Toxicity".FOOD IS POWER . Fisher (editor). Maurice Strong: The New Guy in Your Future!. . in http://www.pdf. Devlin Kuyek. http://www.html. Original report cited is from Australian Adverse Drug Reactions Bulletin. 33.ca/en/ev-64406-201-1-DO_TOPI C.biotech-info. 32. See Henry Lamb. Policy primer Major changes in the policy environment. M. http://www.. Shaping CGIAR's Future. the latter catalyzed an international movement around the Club of Rome "Limits to Growth" scarce resources report.my/mainsite/ bulletin/sun/1996/sun43. T. October 26-30. Ibid. Grain. 27. Dr.

archive.htm. cit. "GM Rice Promoters Have Gone too Far". 34. 35. Also.greenpeace. March 2001..htm.poptel.org. 36. excess amounts of vitamin A are suspected causes of birth defects and its therapeutically used congeners are established causes of birth defects': See also.orgl genenglhighlights/food/benny. Marion Nestle. Paul Brown. BIOTHAI et aI. TRIPS and the Patenting ofAsia's Rice Bow/. Assisi Foundation. pp.172 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION recently reviewed a report of a child born with microcephaly and dystonia whose mother has inadvertently ingested large quantities of vitamin A during the first four or five weeks of pregnancy. . op. Gordon Conway quoted in Paul Brown. http://www. 10 February 2001. Alex Kirby. BBe News Online. 37. 38 Richard Horton quoted in Alex Kirby. 289-290. cit. The child subsequently died.uk! panap/archives!larice. op. Letter to the Editor. 39. quoted in Paul Brown. "Genetically Engineered Golden Rice is Unlikely to Overcome Vitamin A Deficiency". Journal of the American Dietetic Association. "'Mirage' of GM's Golden Promise". 24 September 2003. The Guardian. op. cit. Opinion Piece about Golden Rice. May 1998. Biopiracy. While it was not possible to implicate the ingestion of vitamin A as a definite cause of the birth defects in this case. Bill Clinton. Benedikt Haerlin.

IV Unleashing GMO Seeds PART .


In particular. In a short space of just eight years. suggesting GMO . special wheat hybrids and chemical fertilizers were promoted under the rubric that they would increase per hectare crop yields in Mexico. worldwide acreage planted with GMO crops grew to 167 million acres by 2004. The agricultural land and the population of Argentina were slated to become the first mass testing ground. where David Rockefeller and Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank had cultivated close ties to the newly-named President. an increase of some 40-fold. Its chosen location was Argentina.9 A Revolution in World Food Production Begins CHAPTER B Argentina is the First Guinea Pig y the end of the 1980's. Its backers hailed the introduction of GMO agriculture as nothing less than a "Second Green Revolution:' a reference to the introduction of modern agriculture production techniques after World War II. India and other developing lands. the first guinea pigs for GMO crops. Carlos Menem. A mammoth Rockefeller GMO project was launched. a global network of genetically-trained molecular biologists had developed. That acreage represented an impressive 25% of total land under agricultural cultivation in the world.

" Up to the beginning of the 1980's. Columbia. the United States. Argentina had been remarkable for the standard of living it provided its population. within a decade or even less. The history of GMO agriculture and the Argentine Soybean revolution was a case study for a nation's systematic loss of food self-sufficiency in the name of "progress. rich in agricultural land and loose in regulations. Argentina was second after the United States in size of acreage planted with GMO crops. Canada.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION crops were well on the way to fully dominating world crop production. or 106 million acres. at least in basic crops. By 2004. India. was planted by the world's leading GMO advocate. and at such an early stage of its fundamental structure of agriculture holdings. was diverse. A typical Argentine . its proponents argued. Over two-thirds of that acreage. partly as a result of the Juan Peron era. which in early 2005 repealed a law banning planting GMO crops. that GMO crops offered substantial benefits over conventional crops. 85% of farmers planting GMO crops in 2004 were "resource poor': Most were in developing countries. No country saw such a radical transformation. the Philippines. many other poorer countries were reported to have been targeted by companies promoting their GMO crops and special herbicide and pesticide chemicals. According to data compiled by the Pew Foundation of the United States. as well as farmers. Far smaller but fast-expanding GMO countries included Brazil. That fact. Close behind them and moving fast to catch up were Romania. They argued the crops had already proliferated so widely it was not possible to control the spread. I According to the Pew study. former Soviet Union satellites. Bulgaria and Poland. South Africa and China all had significant GMO crop programs in place by then. Honduras and Spain also reported significant GMO plantings. The agricultural system. Indonesia. as did Argentina. the same countries struggling with IMF reforms and high foreign debts. proved there was a high degree of confidence on the part of the US Government and consumers. productive and dominated by small family farms. with 34 million acres of planting.

among others. and so. in order to prevent the dollar from collapsing. among other things. it had certain . During the peaceful era of postwar world economic expansion.2 Breaking Argentina's National Will During its earlier era of Peronism. husband small poultry. Up to the 1980's. Bank of Boston. Citibank. By 1982. and above all the floating rate of interest on Argentina's foreign debt. In October 1979. and Barclays. Argentina had combined a strong and well organized trade union movement. Argentina was caught in a debt trap not unlike that which the British had used in the 1880's to take control of the Suez Canal from Egypt. a dairy herd and occasionally beef cattle on a small plot ofland. Chase Manhattan. led by the Rockefeller family bank. The loans were to finance the import of much-needed oil. Both of these cooperated with select private companies under a regulated model. impacting worldwide interest rates. the dollar debts rose drastically. the rich land and farm culture typically produced large surpluses beyond domestic food needs.A REVOLUTION IN WORLD FOOD PRODUCTION BEGINS 177 farmer in the 1970's would raise a small amount of crops such as vegetables or wheat. Significantly. The loans therefore quickly proved to be enormously alluring. Argentine beef quality was so high in the 1970's that it rivaled that of Texas beef as the world's highest standard of quality. sold loans to countries like Argentina on initially very attractive terms. those loans could be serviced from national income. with a central state heavily involved in the economy. How a Debt Crisis Makes Argentina a Soybean Giant That all changed with the 1980's Argentina debt crisis. Following the sharp rise in worldwide oil prices during the 1970's. government farm subsidies were non-existent and farmer debts were minimal. which was held over decades by right of possession. led by David Rockefeller had learned the lessons of British debt imperialism. Chemical Bank. international banks. the US Federal Reserve suddenly raised its major interest rate by some 300%. As long as London interest rates remained low. New York bankers.

had close connections to David Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank and was a personal friend of his. whatever its shortfalls. A key actor in the junta regime. would turn out to be too liberal in its definition of human rights and due process of law. this economic maneuvering was the very reason behind Rockefeller's secret backing of the Junta in the first place. The meeting was to discuss the military junta's proposal for massive repression of opposition in the country. According to declassified US State Department documents released only years later. Large infusions of cash from Rockefeller's bank had privately financed the military's seizure of power. The military dictatorship of President Jorge Videla. Kissinger and .3 At least 15. In October 1976. but Rockefeller even suggested specific key individuals in Argentina to be targeted for elimination. Admiral Cesar Guzzetti met with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Vice President Nelson Rockefeller in Washington.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION features similar to the Scandinavian social democratic model. Economics' Minister Martinez de Hoz. labor leaders and opposition figures disappeared in the so-called "dirty war. The coup was justified on the argument that it was to counter growing terrorism and communist insurgency in the country. In fact. . however. Furthermore. He introduced radical economic policies designed to favor foreign investment in Argentina. Argentine Foreign Minister.000 intellectuals." The Rockefeller family played more than an incidental role in the Argentine regime change. The Peron era came to a bloody end in 1976 with a military coup and regime change backed by Washington. had created a strong national identity among the Argentine population. Martinez de Hoz was head of the wealthiest landowning family in Argentina. Peronism. Rockefeller not only indicated their approval. most of whose leaders had been trained in domestic counter-insurgency techniques by the US Pentagon in the notorious US Army School of the Americas. Later investigations revealed that the guerrilla danger from the People's Revolutionary Army (ERP) and the Montoneros had been fabricated by the Argentine military.




The Rockefeller brothers regarded Latin America as a de facto private family sphere of influence at least since the 1940's, when David's brother Nelson was running US intelligence in the Americas as President Roosevelt's Coordinator ofInter-American Intelligence Affairs (CIAA). Rockefeller family interests had spread from Venezuelan oil to Brazilian agriculture. Now they had decided that the 1970's debt problems of Argentina offered a unique opportunity to advance family interests there. While freezing wages, Martinez de Hoz freed domestic wages and prices on the necessities which had been under government price control, including food and fuel, leading to a substantial drop in consumer purchasing power. Import tariffs were slashed, allowing imports to flood the market. The peso-dollar exchange rate was the main nominal anchor of the scheme. Indeed, the budget deficit was reduced from 10.3% ofGDP in 1975 to 2.7% in 1979 through expenditure cuts, public-sector price increases, and tax increases, and the inflation rate fell from 335% in 1975, to 87.6% in 1980. However, the real appreciation of the peso, and the resulting capital flight and balance of payments crisis, led to the collapse of the program. 4 Foreign speculative capital was also ushered into the country, and Chase Manhattan and Citibank were the first foreign banks to make their entrance. Inevitably, there was protest from the strong Peronist union movement against the attack on living standards, which protest the military regime brutally suppressed, along with all other forms of opposition. Clearly satisfied with the new Argentine government, David Rockefeller declared, "I have the impression that finally Argentina has a regime which understands the private enterprise system:'5 By 1989, following more than a decade of repressive military rule, a new phase in the erosion of Argentine national sovereignty was introduced with the accession of President Carlos Menem, a wealthy playboy later accused of rampant corruption and illegal arms dealing. George Herbert Walker Bush was then in the White House, and received Menem as personal White House guest no less than eight times. His son, Neil Bush, was a guest at Menem's



residence in Buenos Aires. Menem, in short, enjoyed the best connections in the North. With the Argentine military ridden with scandal and with popular discontent growing, New York bankers and Washington power brokers decided it was time to playa new card to continue their economic plunder and corporate takeover of Argentina. Menem was a Peronist only in party name. In fact; he imposed on Argentina an economic shock therapy even more drastic than Margaret Thatcher's British free market revolution of the 1980's. But his Peronist membership allowed him to disarm internal resistance within the party and the unions. For powerful New York bankers, the key post in the Menem government was the Economics Minister. The new minister was Domingo Cavallo, a disciple of Martinez de Hoz, and a man wellknown in New York financial circles. Cavallo got his PhD at David Rockefeller's Harvard University, had briefly served as head of the National Bank, and was openly praised by Rockefeller.6 Cavallo was also a close friend and business associate of David Mulford, President George H.W. Bush's key Treasury Official responsible for the restructuring of the Latin American debt under the Brady Plan, and later a member of Credit Suisse First Boston bank. Cavallo was indeed trusted by the "Yankee bankers."7 Menem's economic program was written by David Rockefeller's friends in Washington and New York. It gave priority to radical economic liberalization and privatization of the state, and dismantled carefully enacted state regulations in every area from health, to education, to industry. It opened protected markets to foreign imports even further than had been possible under the military junta. The privatization agenda had been demanded by Washington and the IMF-which was acting on Washington's behalf-as a condition for emergency loans to "stabilize" the Peso. At the time, Argentina was suffering from a Weimar-style hyperinflation rate of 200% a month. The Junta had left behind them a wrecked economic and fiscal economy, deeply in debt to foreign banks. Menem was able to take advantage of the hyperinflation which was engineered during the final years of the Junta, and imposed




on the country economic change far more radical than even the military dictatorship had dared. Cavallo dutifully imposed the demanded shocks, and got an immediate $2.4 billion credit, and high praise, from the IMF. A wave of privatizations followed, from the state telecommunications company to the state oil monopoly, and even to Social Security state pensions. Corruption was rampant. Menem's cronies became billionaires at the taxpayer's expense. In place of state monopolies on industry, giant foreign-owned private monopolies emerged, financed largely by loans from Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan or Citibank. These same banks made huge windfall profits when, some years later, they organized wealthy Argentines' flight of capital out of the peso into offshore Chase or Citibank "private banking" accounts. The impact on the general population was anything but positive. With foreign takeovers came massive layoffs of-until then-public workers. Not surprisingly, Argentina's Menem regime, and its economic czar, Domingo Cavallo, were hailed for creating what was labeled in the financial media as the ''Argentine Miracle." Inflation was ended in 1991 by imposing an absolute surrender of monetary control to a Currency Board, a form of central bank whose control was held by the IMF. The Peso, severely devalued from the 1970's level, was rigidly fixed by the Currency Board at 1:1 to the US dollar. No money could be printed nationally to stimulate the economy without an equal increase in dollar reserves in the Currency Board account. The fixed peso opened the floodgates for foreign investors to speculate and reap huge gains on the privatization of the state economy during the 1990's. When, in April 2001, Cavallo was recalled amid a major economic crisis, to run the national economy once again, he secretly engineered a coup on behalf of the New York banks and his local banking friends. Cavallo simply froze deposits on personal bank accounts of private savers in Argentina to save the assets of his banker friends in New York and elsewhere abroad. At this point, Argentina defaulted on $132 billion in state debt. Cavallo's first act as Economics Minister in April 200 1 was to meet secretly with Rockefeller's JP Morgan-Chase Bank, CSFB's David



Mulford, London's HSBC and a select few other foreign bankers. They swapped $29 billion of old Argentine state bonds for new bonds, a secret deal which made the banks huge profits and which secured their loan exposures to the country. Argentina was the loser as the swap made its total debt burden even larger. A year later Cavallo and the seven foreign banks were subject to judicual investigations that alleged the swaps were illegal and designed to benefit the foreign bankers. According to US financial investors, it actually speeded the default on the state debt. By 2003, total foreign debt had risen to $198 billion, equivalent to three times the level of when Menem took office in 1989. 8 Rockefeller's Argentina Land Revolution By the mid-1990's, the Menem government moved to revolutionize Argentina's traditional productive agriculture into monoculture aimed for global export. The script was again written for him in New York and Washington by foreign interests, constituted above all by the associates of David Rockefeller. Menem argued that the transformation of food production into industrial cultivation of GM soybean was necessary for the country to pay its ballooning foreign debt. It was a lie, but it succeeded in transforming Argentine agriculture into a pawn for North American investors like David Rockefeller, Monsanto and Cargill Inc. Following almost two decades of economic battering through mounting foreign debts, forced privatization and the dismantling of national protective barriers, the highly-valued Argentine agricultural economy would now be the target of the most radical transformation of them all. In 1991, several years before field trials were implemented in the United States, Argentina became a secret experimental laboratory for developing genetically engineered crops. The population was to become the human guinea pigs of the project. Menem's government created a pseudo-scientific Advisory Commission on Biotechnology to oversee the granting of licenses for more than 569 field trials for GM corn, sunflowers, cotton, wheat and especially soybeans. 9 There was no public debate on the initiative of either the Menem govern-




ment or the Commission on the controversial issue of whether or not GMO crops were safe. The Commission met in secret, and never made its findings public. It merely acted as a publicity agent for foreign GMO seed multinationals. This was not surprising as the Commission members themselves came from Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow AgroSciences and other GMO giants. In 1996, Monsanto Corporation of St. Louis Missouri was the world's largest producer of genetically-manipulated patented soybean seeds: Roundup Ready soybeans. In 1995, Monsanto introduced Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans that had a copy of a gene from the bacterium, Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4, inserted, by means of a gene gun, into its genome. That allowed the transgenic or GMO plant to survive being sprayed by the non-selective herbicide, glyphosate. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, killed conventional soybeans. Any conventional soybean crops adjacent to Monsanto Roundup Ready crops would inevitably be affected due to wind-borne contamination. lo Conveniently, that greatly aided the spread of Monsanto crops once introduced. The genetic modification in Monsanto Roundup Ready soybeans involved incorporating a bacterial version of the enzyme into the soybean plant that gave the GMO soybean protection from Monsanto's herbicide Roundup. Roundup was the same herbicide used by the US Government to eradicate drug crops in Colombia. Thereby protected, both the soybeans and any weeds could be sprayed with Roundup, killing the weeds and leaving the soybeans. Typically, rather than less herbicide chemicals, GMO soybeans required significantly more chemicals per hectare to control weed growth. I I Since the 1970's, soybeans had been promoted by large agribusiness seed companies to become a major source of animal feed worldwide. Monsanto was granted an exclusive license in 1996 by President Menem to distribute its GMO soybean seeds throughout Argentina. Simultaneous to this wholesale introduction of Monsanto GMO soybean seeds and, necessarily, the required Monsanto Roundup herbicide to Argentine agriculture, now ultra-cheap (in dollar


terms), Argentine farmland was bought up by large foreign companies such as Cargill-the world's largest grain and commodity trading company-by international investment funds such as George Soros's Quantum Fund, by foreign insurance companies, and corporate interests such as Seaboard Corporation. This was a hugely profitable operation for foreign investors, for which GMO Monsanto seeds were ultimately the basis for a giant new soy agribusiness industrial farming. Argentina's land was to be converted into a vast industrial seed production unit. For the foreign investors, the beauty of the scheme was that compared with traditional agriculture, GMO soybean needed little human labor. In effect, as a consequence of the economic crisis, millions of acres of prime farmland were put up for auction by the banks. Typically, the only buyers with dollars to invest were foreign corporations or private persons. Small peasant farmers were offered pennies for their lands. Sometimes, when they refused to sell, they were forced off their properties by terrorist militia or by the state police. Tens of thousands more farmers had to give up their lands when they were driven to bankruptcy by market flooding of cheap food imports brought in under the free market reforms imposed by the IMF. Additionally, fields planted with the GMO "Roundup Ready" soybean seeds and their special Roundup herbicide required no ordinary turning over of the soil through plowing. In order to maximize profitability, the sponsors of the GMO soybean revolution created huge Kansas-style expanses of land where large mechanized equipment could operate around the clock, often remote-controlled by GPS satellite navigation, without even a farmer needed for driving the tractor. Monsanto's GMO soybean was sold to Argentine farmers as an ecological plus, utilizing "no-till" farming. In reality they were anything but environmentally friendly. The GMO soybean and Roundup herbicide were planted with a technique called "direct drilling," pioneered in the USA and with the purpose of saving time and money. 12




Only affordable to larger wealthy fanners, "direct drilling" required a mammoth special machine which automatically inserts the GM soybean seed into a hole drilled several centimeters deep, and then presses dirt down on top of it. With this direct drilling machine, thousands of acres could be planted by one man. By contrast, a traditional three hectare peach or lemon grove required 70 to 80 farm laborers to cultivate. Previous crop residues were simply left in the field to rot, producing a wide variety of pests and weeds alongside the Monsanto GMO soybean sprouts. That in turn led to greater markets for Monsanto to sell its special patented glyphosate or Roundup herbicide, along with the required Roundup Ready patented soybean seeds. After several years of such planting, the weeds began to show a special tolerance to glyphosate, requiring ever stronger doses of that or other herbicides. 13 With the decision to license Monsanto genetically engineered Roundup Ready soybeans in 1996, Argentina was to undergo a revolution which its proponents hailed as a "second green revolution." In reality it was the devolution of a once-productive national family farm-based agriculture system into a neo-feudal state system dominated by a handful of powerful, wealthy Latifundista landowners. The Menem government insured that the door was opened wide to the introduction of GMO soybean seeds. Argentine farmers were in dire economic straits following years of hyperinflation. Monsanto jumped in and extended "credit" to loan-starved farmers to buy Monsanto GMO seeds and Monsanto Roundup herbicide, the only herbicide effective on its Roundup Ready soybean. Monsanto also made the initial transition to GMO soybean more alluring to farmers by offering to provide them with the necessary "direct drilling" machines and training. "Soybeans for Me, Argentina ... " The results of the GMO soybean revolution in Argentina were impressive in one respect. The nation's agriculture economy was completely transformed in less than a decade. In the 1970's, before the debt crisis, soybean was not even a factor in the national agriculture economy, with only 9,500 hectares of

l5 Between 1988 and 2003. 48% of all agricultural land in the country was dedicated to soybean crops. Farmers rotated between crops and cattle to preserve soil quality. wheat. predicfed that. cheese and meat. peas and green beans had already almost vanished. leeched of its vital nutrients. Argentina had become the world's largest uncontrolled experimental laboratory for GMO. as Monsanto had promised. Walter Pengue."14 By 2004. over 10 million GMO soy hectares had been planted. grains. just as Egyptian farming was taken over and ruined by cotton in the 1880's. and between 90% and 97% of these were Monsanto GMO Roundup Ready soybeans. required even more chemical fertilizers-not less. By 2000. A leading Argentine agro-ecologist. and cattle. Large agribusiness combines had managed to clear forests. Argentine agricultural diversity. the soil. the area had expanded to more than 14 million hectares. a specialist in the impact of GMO soybeans. For more than a century. a typical family farm produced a variety of vegetable crops. For the first time. "If we continue in this path. lentils.:tion of soybean mono culture.186 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION soybean plantations. with its fields of corn. In those years. milk had to be imported from Uruguay at costs far higher than domestic prices. perhaps within 50 years the land will not produce anything at all. after four years of adopting Monsanto soybeans and mass production techniques. Fields of traditional cereals. as well as traditional lands occupied by the indigenous people to create more land for soy cultivation. Argentine dairy farms had been reduced by half. As mechanized soybean . By 2004. Argentine farm land. The large beef and dairy herds which had roamed freely for decades on the grasslands of Argentina were now forced into cramped US-style mass cattle feedlots to make way for the more lucrative soybean. had been filled with wide fields of corn and wheat amid green pastures grazed by herds of cattle. especially the legendary pampas. raised chickens and perhaps a few cows for milk. was rapidly being turned into mono culture. With the introdu<.

to 51 %. Under the support of foreign investors and agribusiness giants like Monsanto and Cargill. Argentines found they were no longer able to rely on small plots of land for their survival. The lure of huge profits from GMO soybean exports was the driving force behind the violent upheaval surrounding traditional farming across the country. burn their crops and threaten them with more violence. more than 200. malnutrition rose to levels estimated at between 11 % and 17% of the total population of 37 million. By 1998. And by 2002. turning to social disorder. In the more tranquil era of the 1970's.A REVOLUTION IN WORLD FOOD PRODUCTION BEGINS 187 mono culture forced hundreds of thousands of workers off the land. that figure had escalated to 30% of the total population.As farming families were made destitute and pushed off their lands. Peasant communities were suddenly told that their land belonged to someone else. armed groups would steal their cattle. before the New York banks stepped in. poverty and malnutrition soared. Within several years. they fled to new shanty towns on the edges of the larger cities. 16 Amid the drastic national economic crisis arising from the state's defaulting on its debt. while disease became rampant amid the impossible overcrowding. 17 . crime and suicide. That traditional right was trampled by the powerful new interests behind agribusiness. By 2003. most often with backing from the state. Typically. if they refused to leave willingly. large Argentine landowners moved systematically to seize land from helpless peasants. peasants had rights over lands of which they had the uncontested use for 20 years or more. Argentina enjoyed one of the highest living standards in Latin America. The percentage of its population officially below the poverty line was 5% in 1970.000 peasants and small farmers were driven off their lands to make way for the large agribusiness soybean planters. In the vast region of Santiago del Estero in the north. By law. The land had been overrun by mass GMO soybean acreages and blocked to even ordinary survival crops. large feudal landowners began an operation of mass deforestation to make way for wholesale GMO soybean crops. .

Monsanto adopted another ploy. of the patented glyphosate Roundup herbicide that went along with it. Because Argentina's national Seed Law did not protect Monsanto's patent on its glyphosate-resistant genetically modified soybean seed. Monsato deliberately waived its "technology license fee:' favoring the widest possible proliferation of its GM seeds across the land. The insidious marketing strategy behind selling glyphosate-resistant seeds was that farmers were forced to purchase the specially matched Monsanto herbicides. 18 Monsanto partner Cargill was itself accused of illegally smuggling GMO soybean seeds secretly mixed with non-GMO seeds. Farmers in the USA and elsewhere had to sign a binding contract with Monsanto agreeing to not re-use saved seeds and to pay new royalties to Monsanto each year-a system which can be seen as a new form of serfdom. GMO soybean planted land increased 14-fold. in Brazil. In this early stage. the smuggled Argentine GMO soybean seeds were called "Maradona" seeds in reference to the famous Argentine football player later treated for cocaine addiction. Paraguay. not only was it traditional. Monsanto's warriors conquered the land with a campaign oflies and deception. Indeed. and in particular. Amusingly. Collection of such a royalty or "technology license fee" was at the heart of the Monsanto marketing scheme. Farmers were sold the initial seeds needed to expand the soybean revolution in Argentina. the company could not legally demand a patent royalty when Argentine farmers reused their soybean seeds in the next harvest season. . but also legal.188 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Monsanto Conquers with Deception Taking the example of the old 16 th Century Spanish Conquistadores. Bolivia and Uruguay. for Argentine farmers to re-plant seeds for their own use. while the smuggling of Monsanto Roundup soybean seeds spread across the Pampas and into Brazil. Monsanto did nothing to stop what it saw as the illegal spread of its seeds. To get around the refusal by the nationalist Argentine Congress to pass a new law granting Monsanto the right to impose royalty payments against severe court-imposed fines. into BrazQ from Argentina.

three years after its introduction of GMO soybeans. A Technology Compensation Fund was to be created and managed by the Ministry of Agriculture. in 1999. Monsanto escalated its pressure on the Argentine government. and the claim that more than 85% were illegally replanted by farmers in what was branded a "black market:' the Agriculture Secretary. and passed a law making planting of GMO seeds in Brazil legal for the first time. while farmers ignored it altogether. The Menem government made no protest against Monsanto's brazen orders. leaving farmers with no choice but to pay up if they were to process their harvest. Farmers would have to pay a royalty or tax fee of up to almost one percent on the sale of GMO soybeans to grain elevators or exporters such as Cargill. 19 Despite fierce farmer protest. Monsanto claimed the royalties were necessary for it to recover its investments on the "research and development" of the GMO seeds. The tax was to be collected at the processing site. Monsanto formally demanded farmers to pay up the "extended royalties" on the seeds. announced that the government and Monsanto had come to an agreement. claiming that the use of GMO seeds had spread so widely as to be uncontrollable anyway. . The tax would then be paid back to Monsanto and other GMO seed suppliers by the government. It began a careful public relations campaign designed to paint itself as the victim of farmers' abuse and "theft". after Monsanto's well-publicized threat to stop selling all GMO soybeans in Argentina.' it would enforce its collection at points of import such as the USA or the EU. In early 2004.A REVOLUTION IN WORLD FOOD PRODUCTION BEGINS 189 Finally. Miguel Campos. But the stage was being set for the next legal act. where Monsanto patents were recognized. Monsanto announced that if Argentina refused to recognize the "technology license fee. the Technology Compensation Fund was implemented at the end of 2004 . The barriers to GMO proliferation across Latin . By early 2005. the Brazilian government of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva had also thrown in the towel. Moreover. a measure which would spell a devastating blow to the market for Argentine agribusiness exports. despite the fact that Argentine law made it illegal to do so.

thereby ensuring that practically every animal in the world fed soymeal was eating genetically engineered soybeans. Argentines faced a dramatic change in their available diet. Nestle. together with the United States. aided by Monsanto and the giant international soybean users such as Cargill. By 2006. widespread soybean-based monoculture left the population desperately vulnerable to the national economic depression which hit Argentina in 2002. Previously in tough times. eggs and other products with . Similarly. As a result. DuPont AgriSciences created a new organization with the healthy-sounding name. where GMO Monsanto soybeans dominated. DuPont gave out food fortified with soybeans to thousands of Buenos Aires poor. As part of the campaign. soybeans.. It was the first time ever in any country that a population had directly consumed soybeans in such large quantities.. and most processed foods. responded by giving out free food to the hungry. 21 . milk. whether they realized or not. Meals made from soybeans were thus distributed with the secondary motive of fostering wider domestic consumption of the crop. even though the soybeans were meant to be grown as animal feed.190 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION America were melting. 20 Let Them Eat Soybeans! As the GMO soybean revolution destroyed traditional agricultural production. this would imply that every McDonald's hamburger mixed with soymeal would be genetically engineered. farmers and even ordinary city dwellers could grow their own crops to survive. Fearing food riots. hunger spread across the land. A national campaign was put in motion urging Argentines to replace a healthy diet of fresh vegetables. But that was no longer possible under the transformation of Argentina's agriculture into industrial agribusiness. and Kraft Foods. Furthermore. meat. "Protein for Life:' in order to propagate soybean consumption by humans. The Argentines had now become guinea pigs in more ways than one. the national government. Argentina and Brazil accounted for more than 81 % of world soybean production. just as the economic crisis worsened.

more than 1. as a replacement for dairy or meat protein.2 million . A study conducted in 2003 showed that the spraying had not only destroyed the nearby peasants' crops: their chickens had died and other animals. It conveniently omitted the fact that a diet based on soybean is unfit for long-term human consumption. which was bulldozed to make way for mass-cultivation of soybean. especially in the Chaco region near Paraguay and the Yungas region.A REVOLUTION IN WORLD FOOD PRODUCTION BEGINS 191 Government and private propaganda touted the great health benefits of a soybean diet. peasants growing mixed vegetables for their own consumption found all their crops destroyed by spraying. They did not tell Argentines that raw and processed soybeans contain a series of toxic substances which. of lakes suddenly filled with dead fish. In Lorna Senes. Traditional farming communities close to the huge soybean plantations were seriously affected by the aerial spraying of Monsanto Roundup herbicides. of deformed bananas and sweet potatoes. The loss of forests created an explosion of cases of medical problems among indigenous inhabitants. including leishmaniasis. and that studies have established that babies fed soymilk have dramatically higher levels of allergies than those fed breast milk or cow milk. Added damage occurred to valuable forest land. There were reports of animals born near GMO soybean fields with severe organ deformities. diarrhea. damage health and have been related to cancer. were adversely affected. They refused to say that soybeans contain an inhibitor. as Roundup kills all plants other than specially gene-modified "herbicide-resistant" Monsanto beans. 22 In the countryside. especially horses. But the campaign was based on lies. which Swedish studies have linked to stomach cancer. Humans contracted violent nausea. In Entre Rios. vomiting and skin lesions from the herbicide. Rural families reported that their children developed grotesque blotches on their bodies after the spraying of nearby soybean fields. a parasite transmitted by sand flies. when soy is consumed as a staple element of one's diet. which is expensive to treat and leaves severe scars and other deformities. the impact of mass soybean mono culture was horrendous. Trypsin.

farmers found vicious new weeds which needed up to three times as much spraying as before. scientists estimated that plants genetically engineered to be herbicide resistant will actually triple the amount of herbicides used. The increased use of chemicals led to larger costs than with non-GMO seeds. A more perfect scheme of human bondage would be hard to imagine. 23 According to the Pesticides Action Network. herbicides would be necessary-or so went Monsanto's PR campaign. As Roundup kills virtually everything that grows aside from Monsanto GMO soybeans. Also. the company had made grand claims of a miracle crop. By 2004. Monsanto never conducted rigorous independently verifiable tests of the negative health effects of feeding cattle. arguing that its GMO soybean was genetically modified to be resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.192 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION acres of forest were removed by 2003. 24 But by the time the farmers realized this. let alone humans. with the raw Monsanto soybeans saturated with Roundup herbicides. the Roundup soybean crops gave between 5% to 15% lower yields than traditional soybean crops. it was too late. knowing that their crop can tolerate or resist being killed off by the herbicides. far from needing less herbicide. Not surprisingly. To convince wary Argentine farmers to use Monsanto Roundup Ready soybean seeds in 1996. The company assured farmers that they would therefore require dramatically less herbicide and chemical treatment for their soybean crops than with regular soybean. rather than several. will tend to use them more liberally. only one. at which point the government finally issued an order forbidding further deforestation. Grand promises were also made about higher yields and lower costs. GMO soybean had spread across the entire country. the response was hugely positive. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) statistics from 1997 showed that expanded plantings of Roundup Ready soybeans resulted in a 72% increase in the use of glyphosate. On average. . Farmers. feeding the desperate farmers with dreams of a better economic situation. and the seeds all depended on Monsanto Roundup pesticide.

The Argentine case was but the first stage in a global plan that was decades in the making and absolutely shocking and awesome in its scope. .A REVOLUTION IN WORLD FOOD PRODUCTION BEGINS 193 Yet Argentina was not the only target land for the project of gene-manipulated agriculture crops.

Briarpatch. "Request for Instructions". Revista Gente.html. Ruge-Murcia.E.htm.ar/ efeme/24demarzo/dictaduni. 3.194 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Notes 1. May 2003. 31 October 1987. F. 2003. http://www. May 25. William Engdahl.org." 4. Former Argentine Leader Indicted for 2001 Bond Swap. London. September 2000. 6 April 1978. who was told the story by Hill during a visit to Argentina in March 1977. A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order.) and Departement de sciences economiques. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Document #1976 Buenos06130.mercopress. Bankers Accused of Dirty Tricks in Argentina. That swap led to the Argentine default later in 2001.D. Jules Evans. Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars. 20 September 1976. pp. Bankers Accused of Dirty Tricks in Argentina.html. Brazil and Israel. Washington D. State 129048. Kissinger's conversation with Guzzetti in Santiago was first reported by Martin Edwin Andersen. Details of the debt fraud are also well described in Jules Evans. Details in MercoPress. "Kissinger and the Dirty War". http://www. Pluto Books Ltd. David Rockefeller. Asad Ismi. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. ArgentinaUnited States Bilateral Relations.com/publicl markets/banking! news/30jan02-1. Heterodox Inflation Stabilization in Argentina. "Proposed Demarche on Human Rights. 2004.euromoney. Cavallo was indicted in 2006 by the Government of Argentina for knowingly conspiring with US banker Mulford in a 2001 debt swap that was declared "fraud" and cost Argentina tens of billions more in debt servicing to Mulford and other creditor banks. La Dictadura Militar en Argentina:24 de marzo de 1976-10 de diciembre de 1983. The Nation. 7. Market Brief The Biotechnology Market in Argentina: Government Support for Biotechnology. Francisco J. 28 January 2002. Government of Argentina Ministry of Education. Canadian Market Research Centre Market Support Division (TCM) Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.S. . 6. Hill demarche on human rights: Buenos Aires 3462. John Perkins. 8. Embassy. Cynthia J. U. http://www.com. 2.C.gov. Arnson (editor).1976. The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. 28 January 2002.pewagbiotech. http://www.25 May 1976.ats.R. Andersen's article was based on a memo by Assistant Secretary for Human Rights Patricia Derian. http://www. Genetically Modified Food Crops in the United States.euromoney. August 2004.callatin/3nO_e. Chapters 10-11. San Francisco. Centre de recherche et developpement en economique (C. 5. part of declassified US State Department documents. http://www.gc... 2004.com.agr. "Lo que pienso de Martinez de Hoz". 2001. 39-40. "Cry for Argentina". 9. May 1997. Universite de Montreal.me.

Flinders University. Vol. New Study Links Monsanto's Roundup to Cancer. in Argentina.uk.info. op. likewise essential for the development of the brain and nervous system. 3. p. The authors are with the Rural Reflection Group. "Argentina's Bitter Harvest': New Scientist. A joint USANew Zealand independent research organization. needed for strong bones and normal growth. Environmental Science & Technology: Environmental News. Argentina and GM Soybean: The Cost of Complying with US Pressure. "[ s loy foods contain trypsin inhibitors that inhibit protein digestion and affect pancreatic function. No. 15 March 1999. August 1999. 16. Lennart Hardell. http://www. p. http://www.net. p. GRAIN.. MN. pp. Seedling. 484 A-485 A.grain. 13.org. Phytic acid in soy foods results in reduced bioavailabilty of iron and zinc which are required for the health and development of the brain and nervous system. 5. Lillian Joensen. 2003. 15. David Jones. 12. 3.biotech-info. Lillian Joensen and Stella Semino. states that contrary to widely promoted claims of health and dietary benefits. 19. et aI. Judy Carman. p. See also Organic Consumers Association. UK Soil Management Initiative. This is an excellent summary of the interplay between the foreign debt crisis. 23. 19 June 2004. Soy also lacks cholesterol. 21. Paul. cit. 4. 14. 33." The Ecologist. 3. 22 June 1999. http://www. EcoNexusBriefing. Frequently Asked Questions: Advantages and Disadvantages of Minimum Tillage.. 20. Ibid.cit. 18. In test animals. "Argentina and GM Soy-Success at What Cost?" Saturday Star. The Problem with the Safety ofRoundup Ready Soybeans. 4043.. p. Soy foods increase the body's requirement for vitamin D. H. 17 April 2004. 17. Ibid. "A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Exposure to Pesticides". Little Marais. diets high in trypsin inhibitors led to stunted growth and pancreatic disorders. 1 December 1999. South Africa. American Chemical Society. Lillian Joensen. http://www. pp. Sue Branford. October 2004. Southern Australia. Sue Branford. and the transformation of Argentine agriculture by GMO seeds. op. Monsanto's Royalty Grab in Argentina.. Megadoses of . Cancer. 11. 22. October 2004. Miikael Eriksson. October 2002.econexus. "Why Argentina Can't Feed Itself. the IMF policies of privatization. R. Steinbrecher.. Ibid. "Growing Evidence of Widespread GMO Contamination". SoyOnlineService.A REVOLUTION IN WORLD FOOD PRODUCTION BEGINS 195 10. "Argentina's Torrid Love Affair with the Soybean".smLorg.

At dietary levels. Environmental Aspects of Genetic Engineering.biotech-info.php. weight gain and fatigue.html. . in http://www.co.rsnz.nz. constipation. New Study Links Monsanto's Roundup to Cancer. Genetic Engineering-an Overview.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION phytoestrogens in soy formula have been implicated in the current trend toward increasingly premature sexual development in girls and delayed or retarded sexual development in boys . June 1999. in http://www. Eating as little as 30 grams (about 4 tablespoons) of soy per day can result in hypothyroidism with symptoms of lethargy.. they can prevent ovulation and stimulate the growth of cancer cells.net/glyphosate_cancer. Soy isoflavones are phyto-endocrine disrupters." in Myths & Truths About Soy Foods printed in SoyOnlineService. Cited in Royal Society of New Zealand.org/topics/ biollgmover/4.. 4. Genetic Concern. 23. 24.

the economic and political realities of that country changed radically. In May 2003. Control over the Iraqi economy was run out of the Pentagon. a former US State Department terrorism official.000 US troops and a small army of private mercenary soldiers of fortune closely tied to the Pentagon. In many respects." George W. Bush spoke of planting the "seeds of democracy" few realized that he had Monsanto geneticallyengineered seeds in mind. Bush W US-style Economic Shock Therapy hen George W.CHAPTER 10 Iraq Gets American Seeds of Democracy "The reason we are in Iraq is to plant the seeds of democracy so they flourish there and spread to the entire region of authoritarianism. it was also under the comprehensive economic control of its occupier. had gone on to become Managing Director of the powerful consulting firm of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. the United States. Not only was Iraq occupied by some 130. a thinlyveiled occupation authority. or CPA. Following the US occupation of Iraq in March 2003. The US occupation was instrumental in bringing . Paul Bremer III was put in charge as Administrator of the newly created Coalition Provisional Authority. Bremer. US-occupied Iraq was a far better opportunity than Argentina. Kissinger Associates.

. no taxes. He executed more drastic economic changes in one month than were forced on the debtor countries of Latin America in three decades. no inspections. Bremer's first act was to fire 500. nurses. The mandate given to Bremer by Rumsfeld's Pentagon planners.! As a whole." Bremer held de facto life-and-death control over every area of civilian activity in occupied Iraq. Before the invasion. In June 2003. and were put into effect in ApriI2004. in the Pentagon. he did not report to the State Department. teachers. as they were called-would insure that the economy of Iraq would be remade along the lines of a US-mandated free-market economic model. but that was becoming increasingly clear. but directly to the office of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.market private region. and printers. but also doctors. Next. The new laws of the US occupation authority numbered 100 in all. Bremer announced that these state firms would be privatized immediately." He did not say whose business. Bremer moved swiftly to draft a series of laws to govern Iraq.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION the agricultural system of an entire country under the domain of GMO agribusiness. publishers. The US occupation administration simply made Iraqi farmers an offer they could not refuse: "Take our GM seeds or die. he opened the country's borders to unrestricted imports: no tariffs. no duties. Iraq's non-oil economy had been dominated by some 200 state-owned companies.000 state workers. much as the International Monetary Fund and Washington had imposed on the economies of Russia ~nd the former Soviet Union after 1990. the hundred new US-mandated laws-or orders. which produced everything from cement to paper to washing machines. Two weeks after Bremer came to Baghdad in May 2003. which at the time had neither a constitution nor a legally-constituted government. he declared Iraq to be "open for business. which is typically the department responsible for reconstruction. As head of the CPA. most of them soldiers. was to impose a "shock therapy" that would turn the entire statecentered economy of Iraq into a radical free. Notably.

The new laws were imposed on a conquered and devastated land. the only laws remaining from Saddam Hussein's era were those restricting trade unions and collective bargaining. This ensured unrestricted foreign business activities in the country. to being the freest and most wide-open market. with no possibility of objection aside from military sabotage and guerrilla warfare against the occupiers. Foreign multinationals were the only possible actors who might benefit from Bremer's grand economic recovery scheme.IRAQ GETS AMERICAN SEEDS OF DEMOCRACY 199 "Getting inefficient state enterprises into private hands."2 The Iraqi privatization plan would be the largest state liquidation sale since the collapse of the Soviet Union. to make Iraq attractive to foreign investors. They would not be required to reinvest and they would not be taxed. the set of 100 new orders gave total rights and control over the economy of Iraq to multinational corporations. . Enacted by the United States Government occupying agency. Iraq went from being the most isolated country in the world. Investors could also take 100 percent of the profits they'made in Iraq out of the country. CPA Order 37 lowered Iraq's corporate tax rate from roughly 40 percent to a flat 15 percent. "is essential for Iraq's economic recovery. Under Order 39. Moreover. Appropriate to such a foreign takeover of the economy. Overnight. Iraq was to become a model for Genetically Modified or GMO agribusiness. the state would be unable to playa large role in anything. Order 39 allowed foreign companies to own 100 percent of Iraqi assets outside the naturalresource sector.' he said. Under Bremer. With its economy and banking system devastated by war and more than a decade of US-led economic embargo. these laws were designed to pave the way for the most radical transformation of a nation's food production system ever attempted. the foreign companies could sign leases and contracts that would last for forty years. the CPA. Iraqis were in no position to buy their privatized state companies. The beneficiaries of these laws were clearly not the people or the economy of Iraq. Order 40 welcomed foreign banks to Iraq under the same favorable terms. Without tax revenues.

The amendments permit companies in Iraq." Furthermore." Order 81 stated: 11.1 is amended to read as follows: "The term of duration of the patent shall not end before the expiration of a period of twenty years for registration under the provisions of this Law as from the date of the filing of the application for registration under the provisions of this Law:' A further provision of Order 81 stated. selling or importing that product. The amendments grant the patent owner the right to prevent any person who has not obtained the owner's authorization from exploiting the patented product or process for twenty years from the date of the patent's . including changes to Iraqi law. to register patents in Iraq. Where the subject of the patent is a product. Undisclosed Information. which dealt with everything from media to privatization of state industries. Article 12 is amended to read as follows: "A patent shall grant its owner the following rights: 1. An Order was defined as "binding instructions or directives to the Iraqi people that create penal consequences or have a direct bearing on the way Iraqis are regulated. exploiting. Industrial Design. Integrated Circuits and Plant Variety Law.200 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Bremer's Order 81 The CPA explicitly defined the legal magnitude of the 100 Orders. or in countries that are members of a relevant treaty to which Iraq is a party." 12. "Farmers shall be prohibited from re-using seeds of protected varieties or any variety mentioned in items 1 and 2 of paragraph (C) of Article 14 of this Chapter. Iraqi law was made null and void. was Order 81 on "Patent. The law of occupation was supreme. the right to prevent any person who has not obtained the owner's authorization from making. using. 3 Buried deep among the new Bremer decrees. 81 amends Iraq's patent and industrial design law to protect new ideas in any field of technology that relates to a product or manufacturing processes. CPA Order No. Iraqis were told "do it or die:' Whenever prior Iraqi law might interfere with Bremer's new 100 Orders." In other words. Article 13. offering for sale.

Farmers using patented seeds or even "similar" seeds. until a Court ruling struck it down.000 years of . The amendments also allow individuals and companies to register industrial designs. While that might appear to be a fair and sensible business provision to compensate a foreign company for its intellectual property. However. 4 In plain English. This was the occasion for Iraqi farmers to become vassals not of Saddam Hussein. but of the multinational GM seed giants. On the surface. Any Iraqi farmer seeking to take a portion of those patented seeds to replant in following harvest years would be subject to heavy fines from the seed supplier. in fact. was amend Iraq's patent law to recognize foreign patents. Order 81 gave holders of patents on plant varieties (which all happened to be large foreign multinationals) absolute rights over use of their seeds in Iraqi agriculture for 20 years. At the heart of Order 81 was the Plant Variety Protection (PVP) provision. The patents had been granted to companies like Monsanto or DuPont by US or other foreign patent authorities. would be subject to severe fines or even prison. regardless of the legality of such patents under Iraq law. In reality. Under the PVP. What Order 81 did. it appeared to leave Iraqi farmers the option to refuse to buy Monsanto or other patented seeds. the plant varieties being protected were not those which resulted from 10. stipulating that they would pay a "technology fee" and an annual license fee for planting the patented seeds. and to plant their traditional native seeds. as the drafters of Order 81 were also well aware. in reality it was an incursion on the sovereignty of Iraq. Like many countries.IRAQ GETS AMERICAN SEEDS OF DEMOCRACY 201 registration in Iraq. Iraq never recognized the principle of commercial patents on life forms such as plants. seed saving and reuse would become illegal. The protected plant varieties were Genetically Modified or Gene Manipulated plants. Monsanto demanded a punitive damage equal to 120 times the cost of a bag of its GMO seeds. it had a quite opposite effect. In the United States. and Iraqi farmers who chose to plant such seeds were required to sign an agreement with the seed company holding the patent.

000 B. Iraqi agriculture was to be "modernized:' industrialized. . Syria. both of the US and ofIraq. developing new naturally resistant hybrid varieties through the new plantings. ICARDA. a part of the international Consultative Group on International Agritultural Research (CGIAR) network of seed banks. Bremer's advisers had different plans for Iraq's food future. Iraqi Seed Treasure Destroyed Iraq is historically part of Mesopotamia. where for millennia the fertile valley between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers created ideal conditions for crop cultivation.C. Following the US occupation of Iraq and its various bombing campaigns. the cradle of civilization.s It did not. and reoriented away from traditional family multi-crop farming into US-style agribusiness enterprises producing for the "world market:' Serving the food security needs of hungry Iraqis would be incidental to the plan. and developed the rich seeds of almost every variety of wheat used in the world today. the city better known internationally as the site of a US military torture prison. based in Aleppo. They did this through a system of saving a share of seeds and replanting them. could have provided the Iraqis with seeds from its store had the CPA wanted to request such help. the historic and invaluable seed bank in Abu Ghraib vanished. Iraq's previous Agriculture Ministry had taken the precaution to create a back-up seed storage bank in neighboring Syria. the protection was given to back up the rights of giant multinational companies to introduce their own seeds and herbicides into the Iraqi market with full protection of the government. located in Abu Ghraib. Iraqi farmers have been in existence since approximately 8. For years.. a further casualty of the Iraq war. Rather. With the loss of Abu Ghraib's seed bank.202 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Iraqi farm cross-breeding and development. However. the Iraqis held samples of such precious natural seed varieties in a national seed bank. where the most important wheat seeds are still stored in an organization known as the International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA).

the research of countless farmers and scientists has potentially been negated in a single. he is obliged to pay a royalty fee for using Monsanto's GMO seed. No Seeds to Plant On paper. Director General of the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. "The granting of patents covering all genetically engineered varieties of a species . ''At the stroke of a pen.' that it would be considered an infringement of the patent. The CPA's Order 81. The patent laws on plants decreed by Order 81. puts in the hands of a single inventor the . it was illegal for the farmer to save his own seed. In the late 1990's.. possibility to control what we grow on our farms and in our gardens. the world's leading purveyor of GMO seeds and crops. SunGene. Instead. SunGene informed other sunflower breeders that should they develop a variety "high in oleic acid.IRAQ GETS AMERICAN SEEDS OF DEMOCRACY 203 Under Bremer's Order 81.. It did not merely patent the genetic structure though. the specific details of Order 81 on plants were written for the US Government by Monsanto Corporation. They were imposed by Washington on Iraq without debate. Geoffrey Hawtin. Such total control on farmer seed varieties was possible under the new law on patent rights in Iraq. unlike other national laws on Intellectual Property Rights. behind the cover of complicated legal jargon. effectively turned the food future of Iraq over to global multinational private companieshardly the liberation most Iraqis had hoped for. It patented the characteristic of high oleic content itself. were not negotiated between sovereign governments or with the WTO. patented a sunflower variety with very high oleic acid content. it appeared that only those seeds which Iraqi farmers chose to buy from international seed companies would fall under ." remarks Dr. According to informed Washington reports. claiming right to it. if a large international corporation developed a seed variety resistant to a particular Iraqi pest. a US biotech company. legal act of economic highjack:'6 Economic hijack was just what Bremer and Monsanto intended for Iraq under Order 81. and an Iraqi farmer was growing another variety that did the same.

Up to 2003. Amstutz was one of the key persons who had crafted the US demands on Agriculture during the GATT Uruguay Round which led to the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995.20 4 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION the new US-imposed Iraqi law on patents. For over a decade. aclimatic misfortune which caused Iraqi wheat crops to decline severely. In the aftermath and devastation of the Iraq war. In the name of "modernizing" Iraqi food production. As soon as Order 81 was issued. . . the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the US Agricultural Reconstruction and Development Program for Iraq (ARDI) stepped in to transform traditional Iraqi agriculture. former US Department of Agriculture official and former Vice President of the giant grain conglomerate Cargill Corporation. through the Agriculture Ministry. Years of war and economic embargo had thus already devastated Iraqi agriculture and by 2003 grain production had fallen to less than half the level of 1990 before the first Iraq-US war. much of the Iraqi population had depended on UN oil-for-food rations to survive. most Iraqi farmers were forced to turn to their Agriculture Ministry for new seeds if they were to plant ever again. The alleged aim of Order 81 was "to ensure good quality seeds in Iraq and to facilitate Iraq's accession to the World Trade Organization." "Good quality" was of course to be defined by the occupation authority. Iraq had suffered from three years of severe drought prior to the war. DuPont and Dow. Here was the opening for Bremer's takeover of the Iraqi food supply. Iraqi farmers had endured the US-UK-Ied embargo on much needed agricultural equipment. WTO accession meant Iraq had to open its markets and laws to rules dictated by the powerful industrial and financial interests dominating WTO policy. USAID began delivering. Iraq was being turned into a huge laboratory for the development of food products under the control of GMO seed and chemical giants such as Monsanto. In reality. thousands of tons of subsidized. The key Washington -appointed agriculture czar for Iraq at that time was Daniel Amstutz. Also.

The protection in the PVP had nothing to do with conservation. USAID refused to allow independent scientists to determine whether or not the seed was GMO..IRAQ GETS AMERICAN SEEDS OF DEMOCRACY 205 US-origin "high-quality." PVP. an NGO critical of GMO seeds and plant patents. working with the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). where transnational corporations can sell their seeds-genetically modified or not. Pasta?" Under the program. should it prove to be GMO wheat seed. Naturally. the State Department. According to a report by GRAIN.. In effect." Under the US decree. was in fact a patent for plant varieties which gave exclusive rights on planting materials to a plant breeder who claimed to have discovered or developed a new variety. "Let Them Eat . the new US-imposed patent law introduced a system of monopoly rights over seeds-rights which no Iraqi farmer had the resources to develop. The GRAIN report stated the intent of Order 81: The CPA has made it illegal for Iraqi farmers to re-use seeds harvested from new varieties registered under the law. had set up 56 "wheat extension demonstration sites" in northern Iraq with the purpose of . within one or two seasons. certified wheat seeds" to desperate Iraqi farmers that were initially nearly cost -free. "plant variety protection" really spelt plant variety destruction. 7 While historically Iraq prohibited private ownership ofbiological resources. but that is the not the agenda for reconstruction embedded in the ruling. an Intellectual Property Right (IPR). which farmers would have to purchase afresh every single cropping season. Bremer inserted into Iraq's previous patent law a new chapter on Plant Variety Protection (PVP) that was said to provide for the "protection of new varieties of plants. but referred to "safeguarding of the commercial interests of private breeders. Iraqis may continue to use and save from their traditional seed stocks or what's left of them after the years of war and drought. Iraqi farmers would find themselves obligated to pay royalty fees to foreign seed companies in order to survive. The purpose of the law is to facilitate the establishment of a new seed market in Iraq.

" The project was run for the US Government by the International Agriculture Office of Texas A&M University. as it called itself. lentils and wheat. s The $107 million USAID agriculture reconstruction project's goal was to double the production of 30. chick peas. who wishes to grow one of their seeds "pays a licensing fee for each variety:' W3. desperation and a promise of huge gains would be used to trap Iraqi farmers into dependence on foreign seed multinationals. WWWC was a leader in developing "proprietary varieties" of cereal seeds-i. The Business Journal of Phoenix. Arizona. Texas A&M's Agriculture Program also described itself as "a recognized world leader in using biotechnology:' or GMO technology. With their new seeds would come new chemicals-pesticides. any "client:' or farmer as they were once known. fungicides. According to WWWC.. which used its 800 acres of demonstration plots all across Iraq to teach farmers how to grow "high-yield seed varieties" of crops that included barley. 10 These were the sorts of protected GMO seeds contained in the Order 81. it would "provide 1. As had been the case ten years earlier with American farmers.000 Iraqi farms within the first year. formally works in cooperation with the BioS Institute of biosciences at the University of Arizona. including Texas A&M. a central information website for the global seed industry. The idea was to convince skeptical Iraqi farmers that only with such new "wonder seeds" could they get large harvest yields."ll .e. reports that "An Arizona agri-research firm is supplying wheat seeds to be used by farmers in Iraq looking to boost their country's home-grown food supplies:' That firm was called the World Wide Wheat Company (WWWC). Coincidentally. varieties that are patented and owned by a particular company.000 pounds of wheat seeds to be used by Iraqi farmers north of Baghdad:'9 According to Seedquest. all sold to the Iraqis by corporations such as Monsanto. and in partnership with three universities. herbicides.206 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION "introducing and demonstrating the value of improved wheat seeds. Cargill and Dow. which curiously describes itself as a "state-of-the-art garage for bio-research.

' he declared."ls . To facilitate the introduction of patent -protected GM seeds from foreign seed giants. pasta was a food fully foreign to the Iraqi diet.' Pool said. but we have to become competitive. "The idea is to make this a completely free market. "The Minister of Agriculture has been quite good in doing that. such as the Mesopotamia Seed Co. Additionally. Under the banner of bringing a "free-market" into the country. "six kinds of wheat seeds were developed for the Iraqi endeavor. stated. 14 He did not mention who would have the cash in war-torn Iraq to buy such a. under the new Plant Patent Protection rules of Order 81.IRAQ GETS AMERICAN SEEDS OF DEMOCRACY 207 Even more remarkable.. Bremer's Order 81 was designed to create industrialized agro-business using GM seeds for production geared toward global export. Iraq's US-educated interim Agriculture Minister. fertilizers. the $107 million USAID agricultural reconstruction project had the aim to get the Iraqi government out of food production. State enterprises. the Iraq Agriculture Ministry distributed these GM seeds at "subsidized prices:' Once farmers started using the GM seeds. 13 The USAID aim-mirroring US and WTO policies-was to help the new government phase out farm subsidies. Sawsan Ali Magid al-Sharifi. We cut down on the other subsidies."12 That meant that 50% of the grains being developed by the US in Iraq after 2004 were intended for export. so we decided to subsidize inputs like pesticides. "We need Iraqi farmers to be competitive. they would be forced to buy new seeds each year from the company. improved seeds and so on. Only rich foreign agribusiness giants such as Monsanto could be likely buyers. "need to be spun off and privatized. In a December 2004 interview. agriculture specialist with USAID's Office of Iraq Reconstruction. state seed company. demonstrating that. three seed strains will be for bread-making. Iraqi farmers were becoming enslaved to foreign seed multinationals. Three will be used for farmers to grow wheat that is made into pasta. Indeed. according to the Phoenix Business Journal article. rather than to produce food for the starving 25 million war-weary Iraqis.' said Doug Pool.

once again. money for Iraq's impoverished farmers to buy new seeds was earmarked for buying GMO "improved seeds" from foreign multinationals like Monsanto. renewed Iraqi market access could have a tremendous impact in value-added sales:'18 King added that. "The liberation of Iraq in 2003 by coalition forces has brought freedom to the Iraqi people. "pursuing a policy of starving the Iraqi ." As an example." King told the US House Agriculture Committee. to be a significant commercial market. "With the current challenges facing the US rice industry . "It has the potential. Iraq was the top market for US rice in the late '80s.. In Spring 2004 as Order 81 was promulgated by Bremer's CPA. 19 The resumption of trade has also provided hope for the US rice industry:' He failed to mention that. At the same time. the CPA cited an article that claimed Bremer was.' told Bush Administration former agriculture secretary Ann Veneman-who had ties to Monsanto before she came to Washington-to a conference of farm broadcasters in 2003. Brent Scowcroft. al Hawza. prior to the 1991 Gulf war. The CPA accused al Hawza of publishing "false articles" that could "pose the real threat of violence. the Reagan and Bush Administrations disguised arms and chemical weapons sales to Saddam Hussein's Iraq under the US Department of Agriculture Commodity Credit Corporation export program. supporters of the radical young cleric Moqtada al Sadr protested the closing of their newspaper. vice chairman of the US Rice Council. by US military police.. with sales approaching $1 billion in the 1980s." 16 What Veneman neglected to say was that during the Iran-Iraq war in the late 1980's. in 2003. "Iraq was once a significant commercial market for US farm products. The scandal involved billions of US taxpayer dollars and implicated former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and National Security Adviser. "The US rice industry wants to playa major role once again in supplying rice to Iraq. as well as the Atlanta branch of the Italian Banco Nazionale de Lavoro (BNL)Y According to John King. most US rice was genetically manipulated.208 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION In other words. US commodity exporters were hungrily eyeing new market opportunities.

as part of the estimated $120 billion foreign debts from the Saddam Hussein era. The Paris Club governments agreed to new terms on the limited $39 billion state-owed debts only after heavy pressure from US Iraq Special Debt Negotiator. France. Germany and other countries. James Baker III.IRAQ GETS AMERICAN SEEDS OF DEMOCRACY 209 people to make them preoccupied with procuring their daily bread so they do not have the chance to demand their political and individual freedoms. the leading representatives of the Paris Club of creditor governments issued a proclamation on how they would handle the estimated $39 billion Iraqi government debt owed to the industrial countries at large. To this end. Neither was it surprising that Bremer's CPA would vigorously try to silence such criticisms of its food policy given the stakes for the entire GMO project. Iraq. Washington was initially not about to wipe the slate clean and declare the old debts illegitimate.2 billion of the total debt. 2004. for the simple reason that most of that debt was owed to Russia. In the ensuing horse trading with its OECD allies. agreed on a debt treatment to ensure its long term debt sustain ability. The Paris Club members issued an official press statement: The representatives of the Creditor Countries. they recommended that their Governments deliver the following exceptional treatment: . Despite the overthrow of the regime of Saddam Hussein. Bush in 2001 through an appeal to the Supreme Court. the US Government was quite happy to press for a major write-off of old Iraqi debt to Paris Club creditors. aware of the exceptional situation of the Republic of Iraq and of its limited repayment capacity over the coming years. The United States held a minor $2. He engineered the election of George W. and he is one of the closest advisers of the Bush family. Baker was no novice negotiator. USA and the IMF Dictates On November 21."2o That such articles would appear in light of Order 81 was hardly surprising. Japan.

Croatia. a reduction of 30% of the debt stock will be delivered.210 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION - an immediate cancellation of part of the late interest. in which the principal occupier." GM seeds and the industrialization of agriculture would be at the heart of that forced change.2005. representing 30% of the debt stock as at January 1. China-was bound with the proviso that Iraq adhere to the strict IMF "standard program. . that old Iraqi debt of the Hussein era was what international governments called "odious debts"-debts incurred without the consent of the population and not in the interest of that population-in short.Paris Club Creditors agreed to grant an additional tranche of debt reduction representing 20% of the initial stock upon completion of the last IMF Board review of three-years of implementation of standard IMF programs. as the debts of the defunct Soviet Union had been. Serbia.useful weapon to control the "new" Iraq. ~ree-market private enter- . 21 The debt relief of Iraq. The remaining debt stock is deferred up to the date of the approval of an IMF standard program. This cancellation results in the write-off of 1l. The remaining debt stock will be rescheduled over a period of 23 years including a grace period of 6 years.as soon as a standard IMF programme is approved. London and other members of the Paris Club.9 billion US dollars. Poland.6 billions US dollars increasing the rate of cancellation to 60%. generously wrote off the debt owed by Saddam to Washington's rivals who had opposed the war on Iraq-Russia. The debt was a . . Argentina and post-soviet Russia. and to force its transformation into a "free market. That did not bother Washington. Adding insult to injury.6 billion US dollars on a total debt owed to the Paris Club of 38. Privatization of state enterprises was at the top of the Washington Consensus IMF program. This step will reduce the debt stock by another 1l. illegitimate." That standard program was the same as the one applied to Indonesia. It mandated Iraq to turn its economic sovereignty over to IMF technocrats effectively controlled by the US Treasury and the Washington administration. France. the United States.

Local businesses and family farms would be unable to compete under the imposed rules and foreign competition. A typical victim of IMF conditions would inevitably be forced to transform its national economy towards export in order to earn dollars to repay their debt. The blackmail behind the IMF carrot was the threat that a victim debtor country would be permanently blacklisted from all foreign credits should it refuse the IMF conditions. The "carrot" for this was always promise of an IMF "bailout" or "rescue" loan. giant corporate banking and private interests stood behind these IMF measures. The debt terms of the IMF were used to force countries to virtually give away their most precious economic assets to foreign interests in order to repay a debt that grew ever larger. This was hardly a coincidence. Typically." Since the debt crisis of the 1980's. and cuts in public education spending. and foreign products would force domestic Iraqi goods out of the market." . Iraq was to be no different. and no ownership restrictions. elimination of public subsidies for food. In effect. The IMF would force Iraq to join Washington's global vision of a "free market. the IMF enforced brutal creditor austerity and debt repayment plans in developing economies. of which food would be one major product. minimal taxes. open borders. The people of Iraq would lose hundreds of thousands of jobs. Every policy that would allow multinational corporations to dominate postwar Iraq would thus be executed by the IMF and the Bremer laws: a shrunken state. flexible workforce. The IMF could be accurately labeled as the "policeman of globalization. no tariffs. They systematically imposed privatization of state enterprises. no controls on capital outflows out of Iraq. health and energy. this would place the IMFas the "neutral" agency responsible for Iraqi adherence to the 100 Bremer Orders.IRAQ GETS AMERICAN SEEDS OF DEMOCRACY 21I prise was also at the heart of the CPA's 100 Orders of April 2004. The US-mandated Iraqi elections were intended to set the legal stage to bind Iraq's government to the severe IMF controls.

were to guarantee that. . Bremer cemented the 100 Orders with Article 26 of the Iraqi interim constitution. it would be powerless to change the Bremer Laws. It was becoming clear to most Iraqis by late 2004 just what Washington meant when it used the noble words. a hand-picked Washington protege who had worked with the CIA for years. and the announcement of Iraqi elections for January 2005. firmly embedded in some 14 new US military bases constructed across the country after 2003. Since the relief of a large amount of Iraq's external debt was dependent on approval by the Fund. were undertaken in utter violation of international law. 2005 Iraqi elections. As protests against the Iraqi privatization and violent attacks on American companies spread. 1483 had given Bremer the power to manage occupied Iraq. which ensured that once sovereignty was handed over to the interim government. The result was the interim regime of Iyad Allawi. The presence of 132. "planting the seeds of democracy" in their nation. the IMF had considerable leverage in its negotiations with Iraqi leaders. and were empowered with the authority to override any of the decisions made by subsequent Iraqi governments. Allawi. but this was to be within the parameters of international law. Bremer's 100 Orders and economic "shock therapy" however.212 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION The IMF planned to reach a specific arrangement with Iraq's new government sometime after the January 30.000 US troops across Iraq. In addition. Bremer therefore rushed back to Washington to discuss with the President a new scheme for taking over Iraq's economy. These laws were formulated in a way which would make it very difficult for either the interim government or any subsequent Iraqi government to revoke or repeal these policies. hand-picked US sympathizers were inserted by Bremer into every Iraqi ministry. Under Order 39 of what became known in Iraq as "the Bremer Laws:' Iraqi industries and markets were to be opened to foreign investment with few restrictions. it became urgent to conceal this · embarrassing fact. Indeed. was to "legally" implement the illegal Bremer decrees.22 United Nations Security Council Resolution No.

going on to state that "three foreign banks have already been licensed to begin operations. the latter agreed to accept debt relief in exchange for its "openness" to IMF-imposed reforms. which is among the largest in the world.IRAQ GETS AMERICAN SEEDS OF DEMOCRACY 213 The seeds had nothing to do with the ability of ordinary Iraqi citizens to determine their own independent destiny. 24 The forced transformation of Iraq's food production into patented GMO crops is one of the clearest examples of the manner in which Monsanto and other GMO giants are forcing GMO crops onto an unwilling or unknowing world population.' and that "a number of foreign banks have shown interest in acquiring a minority ownership stake in private Iraqi banks. Thus. in a memorandum attached to a "letter of intent" sent by Central Bank Governor Shababi and Finance Minister Al-Mahdi to the IMF that September. After official authority was transferred in June 2004 from Bremer's CPA to the Interim Iraqi regime headed by CIA asset. Allawi. the men expressed their US-installed government's eagerness to "engage" with the fund. 23 "New financial sector legislation has paved the way for the creation of a modern financial sector." One bank was the London HSBC.' the letter boasted. .

mindfully." 4. US Department of Agriculture. 13. Remarks by Agriculture Secretary Ann M. 14.org/articles/?id=6. http:// www. 0384. Washington D. Ibid. Orders. http://www. Integrated Circuits and Plant Variety Law. Veneman to the National Association of Farm Broadcasters Annual Convention.org. October 2004.grain. Christopher D. Press Release. "Patenting the Planet". Cook.grain. Portal Iraq. 2. 3. Iraq's New Patent Law: A Declaration of War against Farmers. 7.cpa-iraq. Veneman. Release No. "Agribusiness Eyes Iraq's Fledgling Markets". June 1994. Green Books. Undisclosed Information. William Erskine. including changes to Iraqi law. "Orders-are binding instructions or directives to the Iraqi people that create penal consequences or have a direct bearing on the way Iraqis are regulated. Iraq's New Patent Law: A Declaration of War Against Farmers.214 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Notes 1. Baghdad. Naomi Klein. http://www. In its introduction. Multinational Monitor. The Ecologist.C. .irinnews. 1998. 15. Ibid.. Industrial Design. Focus on the Global South and GRAIN. p. 5.iraqcoalition. UK. 30 June 2003.icarda.htm. 10 June 2005.orglNews/ 2003News/30June03. http://www. IRIN News. Harpers' Magazine.03. 10. http://www.orglGE/2005/Iraq-US-Agribusiness-Profit15mar05. 15 March 2005. Order 81:Patent. February 2005. and Vandana Shiva. Seeds for the Future of Iraqi Agriculture. cit. In These Times. Coalition Provisional Authority. 6.com/news/Seeds+for+the+future+of+ Iraqi +agriculture 529.orglregulations/#Orders. "Iraq: Order 81". Hope Shand. Ibid.htm. 14 November 2003. 16. op. Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge. Coalition Provisional Authority.html#Regulations.org.orglregulations/index. 13. CPA Official Documents. 12. Ann M. http://www. 1 L Daniel Stolte. "Baghdad Year Zero". http:// www. 9. CPA Official Documents. Jeremy Smith.portaliraq. the document declares. . September 2004. Coalition Provisional Authority. . IRAQ: Interview with Minister of Agriculture. Agriculture System in Iraq Destroyed: Self Sufficiency in Food Production Years Away. The Business Journal of Phoenix.. GRAIN Press Release. http://www. 8. 16 December 2004. See also Focus on the Global South and GRAIN. "In the Trenches". Devon. 27 September 2004.html.

Ibid. Memorandum ofEconomic and Financial Policies.IRAQ GETS AMERICAN SEEDS OF DEMOCRACY 21 5 17. US Congressional Record. Kissinger Associates. and Technical Memorandum of Understanding. 23. John King cited in Christopher D. "US Forgives Iraq Debt To Clear Way for IMF Reforms" NewStandard.ciubdeparis. Governor Shababi cited in Brian Dominick. cit. 24 September 2004. Cook. op. International Monetary Fund. . Stoga. Iraq. Eagleburger. 20. Scowcroft. Page H2694. 19. Statement by Representative Henry B. Iraq-Letter of Intent. Iraq and BNL. 22. US House of Representatives. 18. Paris Club. ' 24. 28 April 1992. Ibid.org. 19 December 2004. Ibid. 21. hUp:/ /www. Gonzalez. Baghdad. 21 November 2004.

designed by Wassily Leontief. It was a culmination and a logical consequence of thirty some years of work. In September 1986. which opened its doors in 1995 was to be called the World Trade Organization (WTO). That new institution. and implemented.CHAPTER 11 Planting the "Garden of Earthly Delights" T US Agribusiness Moves to Dominate he project of making GMO crops the dominant basic crops on the world agricultural market was the creation of a new enforcement institution which would stand above national governments. under the project financed by the Rockefeller Foundation." After three decades of systematic destruction of barriers to monopoly and vertical integration. . under the slogan of "vertical integration. The work had begun in the 1950's at Harvard University. the GATT Uruguay Round. of eradication of health regulations and safety standards within the United States agricultural . Ray Goldberg and John Davis. US agribusiness threw its now considerable weight behind a radical new international trade regime. by Harvard Business School Professors. step-by-step. two years after the Rockefeller Foundation had launched its genetic engineering rice project.

which began in Punte del Este. the new WTO did have such punitive leverage. and concluded in Marrakesh. the WTO was designed as a supranational entity. a global free trade enforcer. scenic. The reason was simple. It was the outcome of the GATT Uruguay Round of trade liberalization talks. the emerging corporate colossus of agribusiness next moved to flex its muscle by demanding the creation ofa new supranational. For that reason. to be above the laws of nations. The idea of a WTO. It had the power to levy heavy financial penalties or other sanctions on member countries in violation of their rules.PLANTING THE "GARDEN OF EARTHLY DELIGHTS" 217 sector. came from Washington. and. US agricultural exports had been a strategic national priority tied to Cold War geopolitics. a nominally neutral. By the mid-1980's. the WTO was anything but peaceful or neutral. among its major aims. Switzerland. non-elected body to enforce its private agenda of concentration on a global scale. answerable to no public body beyond its own walls. and peaceful location. in September 1986. Behind this fa\4de. Morocco. In contrast. Uruguay. The WTO headquarters were established in Geneva. The WTO had been created as a policeman. however. Ever since 1948 and the initial founding of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. a battering ram for the trillion dollar annual world agribusiness trade. Unlike all previous GATT trade rounds. backed by the aggressive policies of deregulation . in April 1994. Since the 1950's. as with most major post-war free trade initiatives. with the agenda to advance the interests of private agribusiness companies. The WTO had emerged as a new weapon which could force open various national barriers and which could thereby enhance the proliferation of the soon-to-be commercialized genetically modified crops. fearing any common international rules would open US markets to foreign food imports and would damage American agriculture's competitiveness. GATT agreements had no enforceable sanctions or penalties for violating agreed trade rules. Washington had fiercely resisted including agriculture into world trade talks. the Uruguay Round made trade in agriculture a main priority.

The final Amstutz demand. The points included a ban on all government farm programs and price supports worldwide. Cargill was then the dominant US private agribusiness giant. American agribusiness was powerful enough to launch its global trade offensive. presented to the GATT· Uruguay Round participants in July 1987. It had built its mighty global empire through working with the Rockefeller interests in Latin America. low quality industrial farm operations in developing countries. even in time of famine. Minnesota. Its influence on Washington. with global sales well over $56 billion. and in a big way. Furthermore. with no national concerns about health and safety getting in their way. agribusiness wanted an unrestricted ability to market the new genetically engineered crops. a ban on all government export controls of agriculture. l It was. and plants in 66 countries around the world. as well as in the USA. drew up the four-point Amstutz Plan. National food safety laws were seen by US agribusiness as a major barrier to unfettered pursuit of high profit from low-wage. Cargill wanted to control world grain export trade. in fact. was immense. a former Cargill executive and Special Ambassador for the Reagan Administration at the GATT. The Washington position on the Uruguay Round agricultural agenda had been drafted by Cargill Corporation of Minneapolis. and especially on US Department of Agriculture policy. implied that GATT trade rules limit the right of countries to enforce strict food safety laws! The global "free market" was seemingly more sacred to Cargill and their agribusiness allies than mere human life. a prohibition on countries who seek to impose import controls to defend their national agriculture production. as well as with Henry Kissinger in the 1970's Great Grain Robbery sales of US wheat to the Soviet Union at huge profit. 2 The four Amstutz demands at the GATT talks worked uniquely to the benefit of US agribusiness and their growing global position.218 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION and free market support from the Reagan Administration. Daniel Amstutz. . the Cargill Plan.

4 The international lobby working with Cargill and US agribusiness to push through the radical GATT agriculture agenda was an obscure and powerful organization. a move aimed squarely at the European Community's Common Agriculture Program (CAP).PLANTING THE "GARDEN OF EARTHLY DELIGHTS" 219 Amstutz was a dedicated champion of agribusiness interests and was named the special liaison of the Bush Administration Department of Agriculture to Iraq in 2003 to direct the transformation of Iraqi farming into US-led. The IPC and the Agribusiness Lobby Cargill was one of the main drivers of the US Business Roundtable. then the dominant world players. in a scenario reminiscent of how British free trade demands in the late 1870's served the interests of British international business and banking.e. i. "market oriented" export agribusiness with GMO crops. Cargill also created the Consumers for World Trade (CWT). another "pro-GATT" lobby which. . to convince Congress to accept the new WTO agriculture agenda.000. or IPC. Cargill also formed an Emergency Committee for American Trade. represented not consumers but agribusiness and multinational interests. The Business Roundtable formed an alliance for GATT in 1994 to lobby the US Congress to accept its agriculture agenda-which it did almost without question. which called itself the International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council. a powerful lobby made up of the largest US corporate executives. The Congressional decision to back the GATT and the creation of the new WTO was made easier by the fact that Cargill and their Business Roundtable friends poured millions of dollars in campaign contributions to support key members of the US Congress. described in chapter 10. 3 Not content to put all its eggs in one basket. curiously enough. Corporate membership cost $65." The beneficiaries were US agribusiness. Washington called the process "agriculture trade liberalization. the dominant players. The main US agriculture demands at the Uruguay Round centered on the call for a mandatory end to state agriculture export subsidies.

Bunge Ltd. In effect it was a consensus. by essentially lying-Kantor got the Uruguay Round's WTO proposal through the US Congress. the Amstutz Plan for agribusiness. Monsanto Company. the US-led agribusiness giants controlled major policy. Within the QUAD. formal as well as informal. By presenting the WTO as being substantially similar to GATT consensus rules-thus. Clinton gave full support to Mickey Kantor as chief negotiator for the WTO ratification process. GMO giant Syngenta (then Novartis). Unilever. Nestle. They could meet behind closed doors and decide policy for all 134 nations.220 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Founded in 1987 to promote the liberalization of agricultural trade and in particular. it had become Washington policy to give full backing to the development of genetically-modified plants as a major US strategic priority. Monsanto. WTO rules were to be dominated by a Group of Four. Paris or elsewhere could afford to ignore. but a consensus of private agribusiness. which was written by Cargill. he was rewarded for his service to US agribusiness during the GATT negotiations. Winthrop Rockefeller's Winrock International Foundation. The WTO Agreement on Agriculture. the socalled QUAD countries-the USA. the IPC included top executives and officials from Cargill. ADM. as the WTO was in the process of being established. Cargill. IPC was an interest group few politicians in Brussels. Mickey Kantor. and the Business Roundtable all worked closely with Clinton Administration US Trade Representative and later Commerce Secretary. Monsanto and other agribusiness corporations. Canada.was explicitly designed to allow the destruction of national laws and safeguards against the powerful pricing power of the agribusiness giants. Japan and the EU. the US Department of Agriculture and Japan's largest trading group. DuPont. The Clinton Administration had made "biotechnology:' along with the Internet. When Kantor left the Washington Government in 2001. Archer Daniels Midlands (ADM). that determined WTO policy. the IPC. Mitsui & Co.. Nestle. By 1994. Kraft Foods. a strategic priority for US Government backing. then the world's most aggressive .

Phytosanitary was a fancy .' it mandated that such security would only be possible under a regime of free trade. In 1992. became the heart of the WTO's Agreement on Agriculture. Dow Chemical and other agricultural chemical giants had transformed themselves into controllers of patented genetically-modified seeds for the world's major staple crops. be the vehicle for that. Bunge and ADM. DuPont. WTO rules would open the legal and political path to the creation of a global "market" in food commodities similar to that created by the oil cartel under the Rockefeller Standard Oil group a century before. or AoA as it came to be known. under terms defined by US agribusiness. Never before the advent of agribusiness had agriculture crops been viewed as a pure commodity with a global market price.' or the SPS. The time was ripe to establish a police agency which could force the new GMO crops on a skeptical world. That principle was enshrined into the WTO rules under its "Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement. The revolving door between the government and the private sector was well oiled. an agenda uniquely beneficial to the giant global grain traders such as Cargill. The WTO Agreement on Agriculture was to. WTO and Bad TRIPS The WTO marked a step for the globalization of world agriculture. While talking rhetorically about "food security. Washington's Amstutz Plan. Crops had always been local along with their markets. that genetically engineered or modified food or plants were "substantially equivalent" to ordinary seeds and crops and hence needed no special government regulation. without public debate. along with the WTO rules enforcing Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Monsanto. the basis of human existence and of national economic security. The policy goal of the AoA was to create what agribusiness deemed its highest priority-a free and integrated global market for its products. with slight modifications. named Kantor to be a member of Monsanto's Board of Directors. the senior Bush Administration made the ruling.PLANTING THE "GARDEN OF EARTHLY DELIGHTS" 221 promoter of genetically modified crops and related herbicides.

numerous governments. Parallel to the international negotiations that ultimately created the WTO. declaring them to be "Technical Barriers to Trade. Under the WTO's SPS rule national laws banning genetically modified organisms from the human food chain. with GMO plant issues." They listened to their own agribusiness lobby and approved. the IPC and the powerful GMO interests within it ensured just the opposite. ."7 Under the WTO. In 1992. Finally. two years before the final WTO document was agreed upon. "phytosanitary.' and hence. felt that a protocol explicitly dealing with the potential risks of GMOs was necessary. because of national health concerns regarding potential threat to human or animal life. especially in developing countries. Which trade and to whose benefit was left unspoken. "trade" was deemed a higher concern than the citizen's right to know what he or she was eating. some 175 nations were negotiating safeguards to insure that biological diversity and food safety concerns remained a priority in face of the onslaught of new. i.222 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION scientific term which simply meant that it dealt with plant sanitation. GMOs were still largely in a testing phase. largely untested GMO crops. Despite strong resistance. 5 Under the guise of appearing to enshrine plant and human health safety into WTO standards. especially from the US Government. even read past the formidable term.e. The crafty formulation of the SPS rule stipulated that "food standards and measures aimed at protecting people from pests or animals can be potentially used as a deliberate barrier to trade. At that point. That CBD dealt with the safe transfer and use of GMOs. after seven years of intense international negotiation involving hearings from relevant interest groups from around the world. As an extension of that convention. the 175 participating nations had signed a UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Few politicians in WTO member countries bothered to. were termed "unfair trade practices:'6 Other WTO rules prohibited national laws that required labeling of genetically engineered foods. a formal working group began to draft a Biosafety Protocol in 1996. must be forbidden under WTO rules.

a close backer of US GMO policy. Unofficially. acting as spokesman for what was called the Miami Group. delegates were stymied by opposition from pro-GMO countries. Their argument was insidious and sophistic. They insisted that WTO trade rules be formally written into the protocol and that it be stated that biosafety measures must remain subordinate to WTO trade demands."8 In such a case. They turned the tables and argued. The talks collapsed. After ten days of non-stop debate. The demands of developing countries including Brazil and several African and Asian nations were ambushed by the powerful organized government and agribusiness lobby backing GMO. the United States Government was not officially present at the Cartagena meetings. however. six countries led by the USA and including Canada. the WTO and the GMO interests . Australia. Uruguay and Chile. by then fully in the grip of Monsanto and US agribusiness. won an agreement to adjourn without an agreement and continue work in a smaller committee. not that the safety of GMO crops was unproven. Washington. should be considered a "barrier to trade. led by the United States and other pro-GMO agribusiness countries. Miami Group countries insisted WTO rules prohibiting unfair trade barriers must take precedence over the Biosafety Protocol. Washington representatives orchestrated the entire Miami Group sabotage of the talks. Curiously. expecting to sign the final Biosafety Protocol to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. They were too optimistic. The Clinton Administration. The talks had been sidetracked by the Miami Group. had refused to participate as they had refused to sign the earlier Convention on Biological Diversity.PLANTING THE "GARDEN OF EARTHLY DELIGHTS" 223 138 member nations of the UN met in Cartagena. Little was heard again of the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol. another agribusiness free trade ally of Washington. Colombia. Argentina. but rather that the biosafety concerns of most member countries to the Convention over risks of GMO were unproven and hence. Canada. an ardent GMO supporter. The demands of the Miami Group were simple. two countries whose ties to Washington were extremely close.

US patent law allowed agribusiness companies at the same time to claim exclusive patent rights on their genetically modified organisms or seeds. all member nations of WTO were required to pass laws to protect patents (intellectual property rights) for plants. Under TRIPS. "substantialy transformed" it. The patents would block anyone but the patent holder from making. The contradictions between the "substantially equivalent" ruling of Washington on GMO products and allowing radical new patents on GM seeds to be deemed "substantially transformed" did not bother many Washington officials. Having Your Cake and Eating it too Washington argued that only products which had been "substantially transformed" could be labelled in a given country. . not "substantially transformed. needed no label. "Free market tiber Alles" was the motto.' and hence. Niceties of logical consistency weren't high on Washington's list of priorities in promoting their gene revolution . They then asserted under the Bush 1992 ruling that their genetically modified crops were "substantially equivalent" to ordinary plants. The doctrine of the WTO was simple: free trade-on terms defined by giant private agribusiness conglomerates-was to reign supreme above sovereign nation states and above the concern for human or animal health and safety. Whatever argument it took to advance the agribusiness gene revolution agenda was fine by them." This little-noticed proviso in the new WTO rules opened the floodgates for US and international agribusiness to advance the Rockefeller Foundation genetic engineering strategic agenda. Yet. on the argument that the introduction of a foreign DNA into the genome of a plant such as rice uniquely altered the plant or. one could say. selling or using the "invention. The legal framework for patenting plants was enshrined in WTO rules protecting Trade Related Intellectu~ Property Rights (TRIPS). .224 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION behind them had cleared the path to the unfettered spread of GMO seeds worldwide.

who then patented it. It belongs to corporations and is not accessible to farmers. it turned out. rice scientists know that Basmati rice doesn't grow normally on the dusty plains around Crawford. stole the seeds for its patent. the variety which has been the dietary staple in large parts of India. Syngenta and others-soon began testing the limits of how far they could impose the patenting of plants and other life forms on other countries. As one critical scientist put it. and thanks to US laws forbidding the labelling of genetic foods RiceTec was able to sell it legally by labelling it as ordinary Basmati rice. decided it would take out a patent on Basmati rice. the exclusive patent was in force for twenty years. RiceTec took a patent on its genetically modified Basmati rice. RiceTec."9 Backed by the police powers of the WTO and the muscle of the US State Department. under TRIPS and genetic patent law. In Colorado. even in Texas. Texas. Yet under the carefully crafted rules set up by the Rockefeller .PLANTING THE "GARDEN OF EARTHLY DELIGHTS" 225 The WTO TRIPS rules permitted well-financed agrochemical multinationals with large R&D budgets to set the stage for demanding royalty payments or even denying a customer or country its patented seed. had gotten a hold of the precious Basmati seed. They knew it was highly illegal. Colorado. lo The IRRI had made a "safety" duplicate of the invaluable collection of rice seeds collected in the Philippines and stored it in a seed bank at Fort Collins. IRRI had convinced rice farmers that giving their invaluable seed varieties to the IRRI was for their own security. the IRRI gave the valuable seeds to RiceTec scientists. "knowledge is property. I I RiceTec. In 1998. far from the Philippines. In the case of plants. the gene multinationals-Monsanto. which had been put in trust by dubious means at the Rockefeller Foundation's International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines. A Texas biotechnology company. Pakistan. and Asia for thousands of years. making highly dubious the claim by IRRI that the seeds would be stored as a secure seed resource for the region's rice farmers. with the collusion of IRRI. RiceTec.

who was in charge of biotechnology issues for the Food and Drug Administration from 1979 to 1994.S. This could now be used as a battering ram to force other. Monsanto.M. the US Supreme Court enshrined the principle of allowing patents on plant forms and other forms of life in a groundbreaking case entitled J. Henry Miller. reduced genetic plant diversity. told the Times: "In this area.226 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Foundation's IRRI. government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do." Ironically. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether newly developed plant breeds fall within the subject matter of 35 U.E. through the Environmental Protection Agency. Syngenta. the Court ruled GMO plant breeds could be patented. less powerful countries to respect US GMO seed patents. DuPont and the other major holders of patents on genetically modified plants claimed that genetically engineered rice. 2001. while seeds from the gene bank should not be patented. the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration. In a full-page New York Times expose that ran on January 25. § 101. soybeans and other crops would solve the problem of world hunger and lead to greater food security. Pioneer HiBred. The complicity of essential US Government agencies.S. their aggressive patenting of plant varieties led to restricted research. regardless of how they may patent it. the genetic agribusiness cartel had the backing of the highest court in the United States. and concentrated ownership of seeds which had been for thousands of years the heritage . 12 From that point onwards. the paper wrote that Monsanto gained "astonishing" control over its own regulatory industry. Ag Supply vs. once a scientist manages to do breeding work. or whether the alternative statutory regimes provided by Congress showed a legislative intent that the regular utility patent statute not cover plants. In fact. In December 2001. was a decisive part of the GMO revolution.c. Dr. To the surprise of most legal experts. corn. legally and nominally responsible for ensuring public health and safety of the general population. the U.

The Four Horsemen of the GMO Apocalypse With the full backing of the powerful WTO. Monsanto was founded in 1901 to manufacture industrial chemicals such as sulphuric acid.PLANTING THE "GARDEN OF EARTHLY DELIGHTS" 227 of mankind. the leading provider of genetically modified seeds and the world's largest producer of the chemical herbicide. using genetically modified patents on every plant imaginable. moving that sea of changes on command. The Guardian reported. the major international biotech companies consolidated their grip. was to create a global fusion of "three of the largest industries in the world-agriculture. It produced and licensed most of the world's polychlorinated biphenyls. Missouri. and the USA and UK governments. from one unlined porous quarry in South Wales that waS not authorised to take chemical wastes. Beginning in the 1990's. birth defects and cancer. which it called its Roundup group of herbicides. four global private companies dominated the market for genetically modified seeds and their related agrichemicals. . By 2004. The Gene Revolution was a monsoon force in world agriculture by the end of the 1990's. polluting underground water supplies and the atmosphere 30 years later. The world's number one GMO company was the Monsanto Corporation of St. Shapiro. 1999 Business Week of Monsanto CEO. which later proved to cause severe brain damage. food and health-that now operate as separate businesses. Robert B. Monsanto spent some $8 billion buying up seed companies to complement its role as one of the world's leading herbicide producers."13 Monsanto saw itself as a kind of modern day King Kanute. British investigators uncovered internal UK Government memos and evidence that Monsanto had illegally dumped some 67 chemicals. . including Agent Orange derivatives. The strategy defined in an interview in the April 12. This process enormously increased the risk for entire plant species to be devastated due to the new monocultures. Louis. glyphosate. In early 2007. But there are a set of changes that will lead to their integration. dioxins and PCBs (which could have been made only by Monsanto).

7 billion takeover of Pioneer. Henry Wallace. a $3. with stratospheric levels of dioxin. Pioneer Hi-Bred billed itself as "the world's leading developer and supplier of advanced plant genetics to farmers worldwide. and created a seed-chemical industry complex intended to be a primary engine in the shift by the chemical industry from petroleum-dependency. was taken over by the Delaware chemicals giant DuPont in 1999. a company founded in the 1930's by later Rockefeller collaborator in the Green Revolution. Dow's factories at its global headquarters in Midland. Tests done . ofJohnstown. with annual revenues of over $24 billion and operations in 168 countriesY Like its GMO agribusiness allies. Monsanto and DuPont.228 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION "Evidence has emerged that the Monsanto chemical company paid contractors to dump thousands of tonnes of highly toxic waste in British landfill sites. DuPont completed its $7. 15 The second member of the GMO global quartet to emerge in the late 1990's was DuPont Corporation's Pioneer Hi~Bred International. contaminated the entire region. Dow AgroSciences was formed in 1997 when Dow Chemical bought drug-maker Eli Lilly's stake in Dow Elanco. Pioneer's market dominance was based primarily on its corn seed. In October 1999. Pioneer Hi~Bred International (PHI) was considered to be the largest proprietary seedbank in the world.' and was active in 70 countries. or demonstrated concern for human health. Since the 1980s. knowing that their chemicals were liable to contaminate wildlife and people. Dow had a disreputable history concerning environmental and public health issues. Pioneer had been moving into plant genetics. to a feedstock provided by genetic engineering. 16 Based in Indianapolis. With its huge germplasm holdings and intellectual property. Iowa. Pioneer Hi-Bred.. including the Tittabawassee River floodplains. Indiana. MI.4 billion seed and agrochemicals conglomerate active in 66 countries. the third GMO giant was Dow AgroSciences. Inc."14 Monsanto entered the world of GMO with a less than spotless record for corporate integrity. the world's second largest chemical company overall. The parent company had grown to be Dow Chemical.

in the case Bates v. Wash hands and any other exposed body surfaces after any soil contact. would burn them on contact. when sprayed over people. and cancer. Dow AgroSciences won a declaratory judgment against the farmers in federal district court seeking.. Dow's President at the time. Do not engage in any other activities that may introduce soil into the mouth . The infamous 1972 photograph of a naked child running down a street in Vietnam screaming in agony. Dow AgroSciences. twenty-nine farmers in western Texas went to court contending that Strongarm. a strategic weapon essential to the pursuit of the tactic we are engaged in without exorbitantloss of American lives. decreased fertility."19 Dioxin is among the most toxic compounds ever studied. seeds. ..20 Dow was the innovator of the infamous napalm used against civilians in Vietnam. a herbicide manufactured by Dow AgroSciences.. and biotechnology solutions to serve the world's growing population. The state warned residents of Midland to "avoid allowing children to play in soils. birth defects. The jelly-like chemical. It is harmful to life in miniscule amounts and has been linked by experts to endometriosis. described napalm as "a good weapon for saving lives . a judicial declaration that the .. IS Some samples had concentrations of dioxin nearly 100 times higher than cleanup standards. Herbert D.PLANTING THE " GARDEN OF EARTHLY DELIGHTS" 229 by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality found that 29 of 34 soil samples taken in Midland had dioxin levels higher than state cleanup standards."21 Dow AgroSciences described its GMO role as "providing innovative crop protection. according to one scientific report. Do not eat unwashed foods from your garden. neurotoxicity. Dioxin can affect insulin. thyroid and steroid hormones. Doan. threatening the development of all human newborns. captured for the world the effects of napalm. diabetes. testicular atrophy. among other things. immune system impairment. The farmers sued Dow for false advertising. breach of warranty and fraudulent trade practices under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act." In 2003. had severely damaged their peanut crops and had not killed the weeds as promised. reproductive dysfunction.

lasting almost five years. was the world's second biggest agrochemicals producer and third biggest seed producer. which went to the Supreme Court. 23 Glockner was the first approved farmer in Germany to use the Bt Corn from Syngenta for animal feed. found evidence that planting Syngenta Bt-176 genetically-engineered corn to feed his cattle in 1997. Glockner was careful. He kept detailed notes of his experiences. The US Government sided with Dow as amicus curiae in the case. Syngenta was in many respects a British-controlled company whose chairman and many directors came from the British AstraZeneca side. his proved to be one of the longest-running tests of the effects of Syngenta's Bt-176 corn anywhere in the world.230 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Federal Insecticide. It claimed in 2005 to be the world's largest agrochemical corporation and third largest seed company. He wanted the beneficial effects of the GMO crop to feed his cattle. 22 The fourth horseman of the GMO battalion was Syngenta of Basel. He grew only a small test field of Bt -176 corn. had been responsible for killing off his cattle. which deliberately cultivated a low profile to avoid the controversies plaguing its US rivals. Syngenta. In the first year. initially believing he was at the start of a revolution in agriculture through GMO. the European Corn Borer. which typically cut harvest yields up to 20%. however. Though it was Swiss-based. In the end. Syngenta's Bt-176 corn had been engineered to produce a toxin of Bacillus thuringiensis which they claimed was deadly to a damaging insect. Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempted the farmers' state law claims. 1997. Switzerland. A test of GMO's efficacy wasn't Glockner's intent. The results were not encouraging for the proponents of GMO.8 billion agriculture and chemicals company. Syngenta became subject of major unwanted media attention in 2004 when a German farmer. The results were impressive: corn of . which grew from the 2000 merger of the agriculture divisions of Novartis and AstraZeneca into a $6. and to eliminate crop loss from the European Corn-borer insect. Gottfried Glockner of North Hessen. destroying his milk production and poisoning his farmland.

Glockner had expanded the GMO experiment to his entire field of some 10 hectares. Despite Syngenta's denial of any responsibility. It showed that in his Bt-176 corn from the year 2000. Syngenta rejected any responsibility for the events. with no sign at all of damage from the corn-borer." he recalled." The second year. green shoots. and apparently healthy plants. "standing tall like soldiers. carefully noting milk yields. 1998. his silo corn and his cows. Each successive harvest he gradually increased the amount of Bt corn he fed his cattle. The first three years no side effects from the rising GMO feedings could be noted. One lab returned the result that confirmed Glockner's conviction that Syngenta's Bt-176 GMO corn was the cause. according to their tests. Angelika Hilbeck of the respected Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Geobotanical Institute found that from Glockner's Bt-176 corn samples Bt toxins were "found in active form and extremely stable:' an alarming result that Syngenta insisted was simply not possible. and possible side effects. an extremely alarming event. he witnessed a nightmare unfold. he expanded to 5 hectares of Syngenta's Bt-176 corn. Then. Prof. Glockner. Glockner ultimately lost almost his entire herd of 70 cows. By 2000. five calves died. working closely with the company's German representative. to see high yields. insisting that the cows would detoxify the toxin of Bacillus thuringiensis in the Bt-176 corn.PLANTING THE "GARDEN OF EARTHLY DELIGHTS" 231 uniform height. Their milk contained blood. one after the other. about 25 acres. convinced he would gain higher milk yields. something unheard of in the midst of lactation. as a practitioner. 25 Glockner's independent test results were in complete con- . Glockner persisted and obtained independent scientific analyses of his soil. told an Austrian journalist that he was shocked to find his cattle having gluey-white feces and violent diarrhea. 24 However when he increased the dosage to a diet of pure GMO corn from his Syngenta green fields. "I was fascinated. Some cows suddenly stopped producing milk. were 8. Hans-Theo Jachmann. In June 2004. between May and August 2001.3 micrograms of toxin per kilogram. a university-trained farmer.

"And if any further proof were needed that surplus Agent Orange had been dumped at New Plymouth. but had decades-long involvement with the Pentagon in supplying war chemicals.232 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION tradiction to Syngenta's claims that their Research Center in North Carolina "discovered no Bt toxins in the feed sample. the same Syngenta made a bold move to lock up a major share of GMO Terminator patents." the official admitted.27 GMO and Pentagon Deals Quite notable was the fact that three of the four global players in GMO were not only American-based. "We've buried it under New Plymouth." Dow Chemical had kept it secret for 20 years."26 In 2005. it was attempting to monopolize rice resources with the other. The article added. "Dow Chemical's Nasty Little Secret-Agent Orange Dump found under New Zealand Town. reported an alarming discovery. a New Zealand magazine. including napalm and the notorious Agent Orange plant defoliant used by the US military in Vietnam. local residents found a drum of the chemical on the beach near Waireka Stream. Syngenta's controversial relationship with rice and patents included its involvement with GMO Golden Rice and the Syngenta Foundation's membership in the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Investigate. 28 ·Civilian and retired military victim . In early 2001. In an article titled. Syngenta's enthusiasm for the rice genome stemmed from rice's major genetic similarities (i. Syngenta applied for patents that could effectively allow the company to monopolize key gene sequences that are vital for rice breeding as well as dozens of other plant species.' a former top official at New Plymouth's Ivon Watkins Dow chemical factory confirmed the worst fears of residents: Part of the town was sitting on a secret toxic waste dump containing the deadly Vietnam War defoliant Agent Orange.e. DNA or protein sequences) to other species ranging from maize and wheat to bananas." While Syngenta was donating rice germplasm and information to public researchers with one hand.. genetic similarities called "homologies.

29 By 2005. Over one million Vietnamese were exposed to the spraying. we were aware of the potential for damage due to dioxin contamination in the herbicide. Zumwalt's report stated: "From 1962 to 1970. told Senator Daschle in 1988: When we (military scientists) initiated the herbicide program in the 1960s. by claiming that simply trusting them was the most reliable and efficient way of policing GMO safety concerns. Monsanto. James Clary. We never considered a scenario in which our own personnel would become contaminated with the herbicide. the three US leaders in spreading genetically-engineered agricultural seeds and herbicides had built their argument against any government regulation of their research or the safety of its genetic engineered seeds. mostly Agent Orange. the US military sprayed 72 million liters of herbicides.PLANTING THE "GARDEN OF EARTHLY DELIGHTS" 233 lawsuits against the US Government for diseases contracted in Vietnam as a result of exposure to Agent Orange were still being litigated in US courts more than three decades after the end of the Vietnam War. We were even aware that the "military" formulation had a higher dioxin concentration than the "civilian" version due to the lower cost and speed of manufacture. The Agent Orange produced by Monsanto had dioxin levels many times higher than that produced . In 1990. as well as over 100. Eglin Air Force Base. who designed the herbicide spray tank and wrote a 1979 report on Operation Ranch Hand (the name of the spraying program). because the material was to be used on the "enemy:' none of us were overly concerned. a scientist at the Chemical Weapons Branch. However. retired Admiral Elmo R." Dr. reveals how high that company set the bar for integrity and human life. Keith Parkins described Monsanto's record in Vietnam: Monsanto was the main supplier. Zumwalt. The history of one of the three US makers of Agent Orange. in Vietnam. was named to carry out an investigation of the government's knowledge of the toxicity of Agent Orange to its own soldiers and civilians.000 Americans and allied troops.

Monsanto's attempts at a cover-up were revealed when a court awarded $16 million in punitive damages against Monsanto. The Agent Orange manufactured by Monsanto contained 2. 31 It was an operation enormously profitable for Monsanto's chemicals division sales at the time. an environmental chemist with the US government's Environmental Protection Agency. the ideal level is zero. had tampered with evidence. nervousness and loss of libido . i. a practice which stopped only in 1971.8-tetrachlordibenzo-para-dioxin (TCDD).4.. The levels found in domestic 2. It was revealed that Monsanto had intimidated employees to keep quiet. joints and other parts of the body. the other major supplier of Agent Orange to Vietnam. including the widely used household disinfectant Lysol. inexplicable pains in the limbs. Monsanto's involvement with the production of dioxin contaminated 2. she noted that: . Cate Jenkins. weakness. 1.3. aired an interview with Dr. A wide range of products manufactured by Monsanto have been contaminated with dioxins. Referring to the situation when Monsanto faced lawsuits from US veterans over alleged dioxin poisoning from exposure to Agent Orange. extremely deadly even when measured against other dioxins. Almost immediately workers started getting sick with skin rashes.000 times higher than the norm. that shipped to Vietnam peaked at 50 ppm. CBC..05 ppm. Canadian national radio. 32 In 1999. EPA..234 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION by Dow Chemicals.e.000 Vietnamese children had been born with "horrific deformities" in the regions sprayed with Agent Orange. had submitted false data and samples to EPA. Dioxins are one of the most toxic chemicals known to man. Internal Monsanto memos show that Monsanto knew of the problems but covered it up.7. irritability. Permissible levels are measured in parts per trillion. Parkins concluded that.4.5-T were around 0. An investigation by Cate Jenkins of the EPA Regulatory Development Branch documented a track record of systematic criminal fraud.. 3o An estimated 50.5-T dates back to the late 1940s.

My evaluation of the studies. They refused to admit wrongdoing. The studies were paid for by Monsanto. You could not win a court case when you sued a chemical company for exposures to dioxin . DuPont.PLANTING THE "GARDEN OF EARTHLY DELIGHTS" 235 Monsanto was very worried about the impact of being sued by Vietnam veterans. President George W. their birth defected children. They designed a study to get the results that they wanted. More than a decade later. Monsanto. The bottom line is that the Vietnam veterans were denied compensation for their cancers. And those were quite revealing. Also certain key cases of cancers were eliminated from the Monsanto study for spurious reasons. crops it claimed were designed to feed the hungry of the world.. Monsanto was not into public apologies for its actions. In 2004. 33 Jenkins was transferred to another EPA department and harassed for more than two years as a result of going public. Letting the GMO Genie Out of the Bottle By the middle of the 1990's.. I was able to examine the actual statements of the scientist who had conducted the studies for Monsanto. So they were worried about lawsuits. I am a chemist. I would use the word. . Dow. with the backing of the WTO and Washington. the same companies had refused to pay a single cent to the Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange poisoning. Bush's Administration cancelled an agreed US-Vietnamese project to examine the long-term genetic impact of Agent Orange. an environmental scientist working for the Environmental Protection Agency since 1979. Unlike some politically correct politicians. long lawsuit. In 1984. Agent Orange was hardly the theme Monsanto wanted the world public to associate with the greatest global supplier of genetically modified food crops. rigged. They published a press release during the suit by Vietnam veterans saying our studies show that dioxin does not cause any cancers in humans. The unexposed population that was supposed to be dioxin free actually did have exposures. those same gene giants-Monsanto. Dow Chemicals and the other makers of Agent Orange paid $180 million into a fund for US military veterans following a bitter.

and 90% of those were from poor developing countries. By 2004. GMO cotton was 28% of world cotton harvest. where. absence of labelling. the planting of genetically engineered crops worldwide had grown by an impressive 20% compared with a year earlier. the same soybeans which they had spread across Argentina. and a small handful of others-turned their patented seeds loose on the world. with aggressive Government promotion. It entered the food chain without labeling. totalled 19% of all world rapeseed harvest. Argentina.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Syngenta. 35 Following the United States as world GMO crop leader. More than 8 million farmers in 17 countries planted GMO crops. The EU replied with a moratorium on the commercialization ofGM crops in late 1997.34 When George W. 37 In the United States. Canada and Brazil were by far the largest genetically engineered food producers worldwide. GMO corn made up 14% of all corn. according to a report from the Rockefeller Foundationfunded International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). It was not labeled. and EU inspectors only later discovered that it contained Monsanto genetically modified soybeans. the seed cartel led by Monsanto had already spread its patented seeds with alarming speed. was developed as a genetically modified product in Canada. a form of rapeseed oil. and GMO canola. and the domination of US farm production by agribusiness. genetically engineered crops had essentially taken . precisely the aim of the original Rockefeller Foundation gene revolution. Monsanto shipped to Europe a container full of soybeans from the US. it was labelled Canadian oil or Canola. If it was the ninth such double digit increase since 1996. Bush's prime goal was to force the lifting of the 1997 EU ban on GM seed commercialization in order to open the next major markets for GMO takeover. and the second highest on record. The ISAAA also noted that GMO soybeans made up 56% of all soybeans planted in the world. Bush made the proliferation of GM seeds highest priority after the Iraq war in 2003. toxic in the human diet. In 1996. in a burst of marketing patriotism. 36 Canola oil.

38 Corn and soybeans constituted the most important animal feed in US agriculture. as they are new to the ecosystem and to the food chain of animals and human beings. A 136 page review of all known worldwide studies of GMO effects. butterflies and lacewings up the food chain.4o The group of scientists. far more than any other Order. which included Dr. It was not a process which could be reversed in any way known to science. It was found to be harmful to mice. 45% of all US corn harvested was GMO corn. The study warned: The most obvious question on safety is with regard to the transgene and its product introduced into GM crops. with potentially large impacts on soil ecology and fertility. Few Americans had a clue as to what they were eating. The genie was out of the bottle.600 species. which contains some 28. No one bothered to tell them.PLANTING THE "GARDEN OF EARTHLY DELIGHTS" 237 over the American food chain. The spread oflarge fields dedicated to planting GMO crops led to contamination of adjacent organic crops to the point that after just six years. Arpad Pusztai. which meant that nearly the entire meat production of the nation as well as its meat exports had been fed on genetically modified animal feed.39 The Bt toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis. Mae. more than 85% of all US soybeans planted were genetically modified crops. and most were from Monsanto. least of all the Government agencies entrusted with a mandate to protect citizens' health and welfare. Bt plants exude the toxin through the roots into the soil. presented sobering thoughts about the advisability of untested release of GMO plants into world agriculture. weevils and styloplids). In 2004. prepared by an internationally respected group of scientists led by Dr. incorporated in food and non-food crops. Bt toxins also act against insects in the Order of Coleoptera (beetles. concluded from their investigation that: . account for about 25% of all GM crops currently grown worldwide. an estimated 67% of all US farm acreage had been contaminated with genetically engineered seeds.

A team of scientists has cautioned against releasing Bt crops for human use. Both Bt protein and Bt potato harmed mice in feeding experiments. as potent as cholera toxin. they only wanted Government rules to serve their private interests. They demonstrated that recombinant CrylAc protoxin from Bt is a potent systemic and mucosal immunogen. they can readily exchange plasmids (circular DNA molecules containing genetic origins of replication that allow replication independent of the chromosome) carrying toxin genes. Syngenta. A Bt strain that caused severe human necrosis (tissue death) killed mice within 8 hours. the GMO seed cartel imposed rigid licensing and technology agreements insuring annual royalties to Monsanto and the other biotech seed companies from farmers using their seeds. Monsanto required farmers to sign a Technology Use Agreement which tied them to paying fees each year to Monsanto for its "technology:' namely. farmers increasingly were trapped into depend- . Cargill or other large agribusiness firms. anthracis with unpredictable properties could arise. anthracis picked up Bt genes from Bt crops by horizontal gene transfer. 42 Licensing Life Forms Just as they vigorously insured a non regulatory regime. If B.238 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Bt toxins may be actual and potential allergens for human beings. The private companies were not at all anti-government. new strains of B. Some field workers exposed to Bt spray experienced allergic skin sensitization and produced IgE and IgG antibodies. Dow. genetically engineered seeds. Bacillus cereus. As independent seed suppliers were rapidly being swallowed up by Monsanto. with signs of degeneration and disrupted microvilli (microscopic projections on the cell surface) at the surface lining the gue'41 The Independent Science Panel report stated that in this regard: Because Bt or Bacillus thuringiensis and Bacillus anthracis (anthrax species used in biological weapons) are closely related to each other and to a third bacterium. from clinical toxic-shock syndrome. The mice showed abnormal mitochondria. damaging their ileum (part of the small intestine). a common soil bacterium that causes food poisoning. As with other gene seed companies. DuPont.

GMO firms like Monsanto could intimidate US farmers into becoming "seed serfs:' The Monsanto penalty for not paying the fees was severe punitive legal damages in a court trial. Dow and DuPont-had originated as and still were major chemical companies. Then. the company advertised free leather jackets to anyone informing on a farmer using old Monsanto seed. the big four major suppliers of genetically engineered agriculture seed-Monsanto. large and small. It was the Goldberg-Davis Harvard Business School vertical integration model in spades. The farmers were forbidden to re-use seeds from the previous years. 43 Notably. they took out a multitude of patents on genetic engineering techniques as well as on genetically . they either bought out or merged with most major seed companies in order to gain control over seed germplasm. Monsanto and the other GMO seed companies demanded that farmers pay each year for new seeds. By 2004. and emerged at the heart of the global agribusiness vertical integration chain. They bought up the existing seed companies. It had written into its master contract the provision that any litigation against the company be heard in St. In some areas in the US. two agribusiness giants-Monsanto and DuPont's Pioneer Hi-Bred-controlled the majority of the world's private seed companies. They forged alliances with transporters and food processors. The reason was the same in each case. During the early 1990's. the herbicide giants had reorganized themselves as "life sciences" companies. They all originally manufactured pesticide and herbicide chemicals before they ever ventured into genetic engineering of seeds.PLANTING THE "GARDEN OF EARTHLY DELIGHTS" 239 ency on Monsanto or the other GMO seed suppliers. Monsanto also made certain it would have a friendly court hearing. With the 2001 US Supreme Court ruling. Initially. Syngenta. where jurors knew that Monsanto was a major local employer. The major GMO agribusiness companies had pursued a three-phase strategy. American farmers were among the first to experience this new form of serfdom. Louis. Monsanto went so far as to hire private Pinkerton detectives to spy on farmers to see if they were reusing their old seeds.

Answering its safety is the FDA's job. Lies. Damn Lies and Monsanto Lies . Whether such a wide proliferation of genetically modified organisms in the food chain was safe or desirable was of no concern to the agribusiness chemical and seed giants. circumscribing the incestuous relationship which had been created between the private agribusiness GMO giants and the US Government. the GMO seed had been marketed and developed to be resistant to that company's special herbicide. The Government had agreed to let the GMO companies "self-police" the industry. One of its main arguments was to claim that . Monsanto's spokesman. tailor-made to fit Monsanto's existing glyphosate herbicide. thus forcing them to repurchase new seed every year. marketed under the brand name Roundup. They were "ready" for Roundup. Monsanto GMO "Roundup Ready" soybeans had been genetically modified explicitly to be resistant to Monsanto's specially patented glyphosate.. In the case of Monsanto. unhampered by US Government anti-trust restrictions. The Roundup herbicide was so developed that it could not be used on non-GMO soybean plants. Finally. had long since abandoned any pretence of independently monitoring GMO seed safety. 44 Cleverly. in effect. they required that any farmer buying their seed must first sign an agreement prohibiting the farmer from saving the seed.. The Rockefeller Foundation had carefully prepared the media marketing and propaganda case for the proliferation of genetically engineered crops. to obtain unprecedented control of sale and use of crop seeds in the United States. Phil Angell. The GMO seeds were.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION engineered seed varieties."45 He was well aware that the US Food and Drug Authority. on Monsanto demands. put it bluntly: "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. it allowed a single company. meaning Angell was describing a perfect circle of lies and public deception. That insured that farmers contracting to buy Monsanto GMO seeds must also buy Monsanto herbicide. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible.

evidence began to leak into the press suggesting that those very GMO crop yields were also not what it had been cracked up to be. Gordon Conway. to keep up with population increase. He insisted GMO crops were needed "to enhance food production over the next 30 years . issued a public call for a second Green Revolution which he dubbed the "Gene Revolution". A November 2004 report from the Network of Concerned Farmers in Australia concluded. Although Monsanto claim a 40% yield increase with Roundup Ready canola.' estimating that the world would have "an extra 2 billion mouths to feed by the year 2020. to justify their cause. World Bank. their best on their website for Australian trials reveal yields are 17% less than our national average. but there is evidence they yield less." Conway further argued that GMO crops would solve the problem of how to increase crop yields on limited land. IMF and the leading advocates of genetically modified seeds. in the face of gradual exhaustion of the world's best soils from over-cultivation. At least that was the not-so-subtle message of the GMO lobby. and would "avoid the problems of pesticides and the overuse of fertilizers:'46 This carefully formulated pitch for GMO crops was picked up by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. If you opposed the spread of GMO seeds. Rockefeller Foundation President. in the case of genetically modified planting of canola. that there is no evidence that GMO canola crops yield more. Despite the most concerted effort by the GMO agribusiness companies and their financially captive university researchers. required a dramatic new approach to feeding the planet. Whether GMO crops promised large improvement in crop yield per hectare planted was also greatly disputed. Bayer CropScience trial yields are also not comparing well against non-GMO varieties.. especially the seed conglomerates themselves..PLANTING THE "GARDEN OF EARTHLY DELIGHTS" 241 global population growth in the coming decades. you de facto supported genocide against the world's poor. 47 .

concluded that rather than boosting farmers' crop yields. Only by adding DuPont's Classic herbicide would the weed die."49 In Argentina and Brazil. "GMO soybeans and maize have worsened the situation. Michael Duffy. where Argentine GMO seeds had been illegally smuggled in. 50 The results for genetically modified Bt corn planted in the United States were hardly better. "herbicide tolerant GMO soybeans lose more money per acre than non-GMO soybeans."48 Based on six years of GMO growing experience. Dr. The study reported the analysis by Iowa University economist. In order to combat the damaging weeds threatening Monsanto's Roundup Ready GMO soybean fields. The phenomenon became so common in fragile GMO soybean fields that a new growth segment for DuPont and the other herbicide makers became devising. a weed had developed which could not be killed with any dosage of glyphosate named in Brazil corda-de-viola. Charles Benbrook of the Northwest Science and Environment Policy Center in Idaho. found that "from 1996-2001.242 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION The Soil Association in the UK issued a report in 2002 entitled "The Seeds of Doubt. The GMO industry claims to dramatically lower herbicide requirements had been proven false. while boosting their harvest by only 276 million bushels-worth $567 million in eco- . other supplemental herbicides had to be used. the study showed that there was real cause for alarm at the increasing farmer dependency on genetic crops. The report. American farmers paid at least $659 million in price premiums to plant Bt corn. who found that when all production factors were taken into account. patenting and producing such chemical add-ons to glyphosate. studies confirmed the emergence of glyphosate-resistant "superweeds" which were impervious to normal doses of Monsanto's Roundup glyphosate herbicide. In one case in southern Brazil. one of the few independent assessments available. using USDA Government data in a detailed analysis of the economics of Bt corn.' based on extensive research with USA farmers who had used genetically modified crops.

for most producers. the contract prohibited farmers. at the risk of severe penalty. and although genetically engineered Bt corn produced a small yield increase overall. "while there are some farmers growing GMO crops who have been able to cut their production costs or increase yields with GMO crops. the fees are typically $8.$10/acre. the study concluded.' meaning more tons of pesticide and herbicide per acre than with ordinary varieties of the same crops. 53 Further contradicting the claims that GMO crops required significantly less chemical fertilizer-an argument used to win over ecological opponents-the study in fact found that Roundup Ready soybeans. DuPont and the other GMO seed companies for their seeds. For Bt maize. GMO seeds were significantly more expensive because of the added technology fee. Roundup Ready soybeans can have a technology fee of about $6/acre. any savings have been more than offset by the technology fees . from reusing a portion of their seeds in the following year's planting. it appears that. "GMO seeds cost 25-40 percent more than non-GMO seeds."51 Another major drain on farmers' income. However. Monsanto and the biotech seed giants argued that higher yields more than compensated for their added cost. Higher yields were supposedly a prime benefit of planting the GMO seeds. was the very high fees farmers had to pay to Monsanto. the "Seeds of Doubt" research study concluded that Monsanto Roundup Ready soybeans and Roundup Ready rapeseed produced on average lower yields than non-GMO varieties."52 In addition. 54 The study concluded that. The study concluded that with the technology fee. corn. and rapeseed had "mostly resulted in an increase in agrochemical use. it was not enough over the whole period to cover the higher production costS.PLANTING THE "GARDEN OF EARTHLY DELIGHTS" 243 nomic gain.31 per acre-from growing Bt maize (corn). The bottom line for farmers is a net loss of $92 million-about $1. though they can be up to $30/acre. for example. Seeds typically accounted for 10% of normal corn production costs. A significant cost was the "technology fee" charged by the seed conglomerates ostensibly to reimburse their high research and development costs. about 30-35 percent higher than non-GMO varieties.

"Herbicide tolerant" plants were genetically modified to ensure that those who grew the crops had no other option but to also use the herbicides of the same companies... especially soybeans. Charles Benbrook's study. as a supplement to control weeds. Many independent crop scientists and farmers predicted the imminent danger of the creation of super-weeds and Bt-resistant pests which could threaten entire harvests. There was a significant increase in herbicide use on GMO crops compared to acres planted with conventional plant varieties.e. soybeans and cotton in the United States since 1996 has increased pesticide use by about 50 million pounds. ."55 Numerous other studies confirmed that GMO crops required not less but typically more chemical herbicides and pesticides after one or two seasons than non-GMO crops. unexpectedly. herbicide-tolerant weeds had emerged requiring added use of other herbicides in addition to the GMO-specific brands such as Monsanto's Roundup Ready. revealed that far from using less pesticides."56 Dr. Increasingly. discovered that. where GMO crops had been planted for a number of years. . as well as the lower yields and higher agrochemical use of certain GMO crops.58 In the case of GMO corn. "The application of biotechnology at present is most likely . not to increase maximum yields. one of the most toxic herbicides that exist. it appeared that the case in favour of widespread commercial use of genetically engineered seeds for agriculture had been based on a citadel of scientific fraud and corporate lies. "the planting of 550 million acres of genetically engineered corn. based on USDA official data. More fundamental scientific breakthroughs are necessary if yields are to increase."57 The main reason cited for theincrease was "substantial increases" in herbicide use on "herbicide tolerant"-i. genetically modified crops. Farmers across the United States. Even the US Department of Agriculture admitted the advertised claims of GMO did not bear relation to reality.244 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION and lower market prices. similar to the results confirmed across GMO soybean fields in Brazil and Argentina. the weed plague had necessitated the use of the chemical herbicide atrazine.

" . compared to 6 percent of the offspring of the other groups. Her study found that more than half of the offspring of rats fed on genetically modified soybean diet died in the first three weeks of life-six times as many as those born to mothers with normal diets. "Unborn Babies Could be Harmed by GMOS:'59 The article reported on research results from scientist Dr. Tony Coombes. In January 2006. Dr. peer-reviewed. the results of which were attacked and belittled by the marvellous propaganda machine of the GMO agribusiness lobby. Monsanto's Public Relations department merely restated their mantra. birth and nursing. The Russian scientist was alarmed to find that 36 percent of the young of rats fed the diet of modified soybeans were severely underweight. "The overwhelming weight of evidence from published. a staggering 55. The Independent carried a story titled. Ermakova while curiously avoiding the obvious call to repeat the simple test in other labs to confirm or refute. as well as all other animal species studied. independently conducted scientific studies demonstrates that Roundup Ready soy can be safely consumed by rats.6 percent of those born to mothers on the GMO diet died within three weeks of birth. "The morphology and biochemical structures of rats are very similar to those of humans.' said Dr Ermakova. continuing through pregnancy. Irina Ermakova of the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. and a third group was given no soybean at all. Others were given non-GM soybeans. compared to 9 percent of the offspring of those fed normal soybeans. starting two weeks before they conceived. and this makes the results very disturbing.PLANTING THE "GARDEN OF EARTHLY DELIGHTS" 245 GMO Soybeans and Infant Death? From Russian science came another test. director of corporate affairs for Monsanto UK.8 percent of the young of those given no soybeans at all. Ermakova added flour from Monsanto's GMO soybean to the food of female rats. a respected London newspaper. and 6. More alarmingly. told the press. "They point to a risk for mothers and their babies:'60 Monsanto and other GMO firms attacked the credibility of Dr.

SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION The Russian results were potentially so serious that the American Academy of Environmental Medicine asked the US National Institute of Health to sponsor an immediate. Wambugu claimed it would raise yields from four tons to ten tons per hectare."65 . An early article stated 6 tons per hectare-without mentioning the data source-which was then reproduced in subsequent analyses.61 Africa's Fake "Wonder Potato" In one of its more widely publicized acts. but Dr.. an American financial magazine which referred to itself as. "FAO statistics indicate 9. the World Bank and Monsanto. "Accounts of the transgenic (GMO-w. deGrassi noted.e. The GMO sweet potato had been developed by Wambugu while at Monsanto in St. KARl's Dr. independent follow-up.62 In 2001. ISAAA and the the World Bank. not 250% greater as predicted by Wambugu. USAID backed the project through a high profile promotion to spread GMO crops on a skeptical African population. Louis in a project backed by the USAID. and official statistics report lOA tons.7 tons. an institute supported financially by.) sweet potato have used low figures on average yields in Kenya to paint a picture of stagnation". among others. Florence Wambugu was deployed by Monsanto and USAID to give talks around the world. Aaron de Grassi of the Sussex University Institute of Development Studies exposed the statistical gimmicks being used by Wambugu and Monsanto to claim their gains. The GMO sweet potatoes proved susceptible to viral attacks." proclaimed Wambugu as one of 15 people from around the world who would "re-invent the future':63 The only problem was that the re-inventing project was a cata. Their yields were proven less than that of normal indigenous sweet potatoes. Forbes. strophic failure. "The Capitalist Tool. Monsanto donated a genetically engineered virus-resistant sweet potato in Africa to the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARl). where she proclaimed that the GMO sweet potato of Monsanto had solved hunger in Africa. However. 64 KARl and its corporate backers tried to maintain the fraud. DeGrassi stated that.

Mark Twain. Syngenta and the major seed giants nearly ran off the rails with their project to take over the seed supply of the world. and the falling barriers to GMO proliferation.PLANTING THE "GARDEN OF EARTHLY DELIGHTS" 247 The World Bank and Monsanto ignored the critical findings and continued financing Wambugu's research for more than 12 years. the Rockefeller Foundation.. It required an extraordinary intervention in 1999 by their patron saint. Damn Lies and Monsanto lies . As the late American humorist and social critic. to rescue the over-eager agribusiness giants from their own methods. .. Monsanto." In the heady environment of a US biotech stock market euphoria at the end of the 1990's.. might have said of the situation: "There are three kinds of lies: Lies.

World Development Movement. This laissez faire policy has translated into the appropriation of part of farmers' rice germplasm by the private sector. Edward A. cit. . UF/IFAS. and not to unduly restrict market access for other countries. p. FL.biotech-info. Fourth Quarter. published in Choices. 4. 26 September 2002. London. Florida Cooperative Extension Service. Ibid. a US breeding company. U. 38. GMOs and the WTO: Overruling the Right to Say No.archive. p. the Transnational Agribusiness Giant".. November 1998. News Release. Evans notes: "The United States feared that.cit.. Lori Wallach and Michelle Sforza. some importing countries might turn to technical trade barriers (notably SPS measures) as a means of allowing them to continue providing support to their farming community. http://www. Undersecretary for International Affairs and Commodity Programs.wdm. op.S. GRAIN. June 1998.grain. http://www. with a reduction in the use and levels of these support measures. 5. Department of Food and Resource Economics. http://www. See also. For example.org. November 1999.electricarrow. 11. 1986. See also Thai Jasmine Rice and the Threat of the US Biotech Industry. GRAIN.edu. Food Patents-Stealing Indigenous Knowledge?. Evans. 2. 45. Letter from Daniel G. they were used only to the extent necessary to ensure food safety and animal and plant health.cit. August 2004.uk. Eugene W. 3 April 1997. http://edis. New York. it cannot prevent those who access their collections from doing so. op. 6. the intent of the Agreement was to ensure that when SPS measures were applied.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Notes 1. Corporate Watch: GE Briefings. Edward A. Seven Stories Press. 1999.com/CARP/ tiller/archives/backlog. "Background on Cargill Inc.ufl. 10. Amstutz. Genetech Preys on the Paddy Field.htm. 8.net/wescotcthai_rice. Gainesville. 9. Evans. University of Florida. Consequently. "Although it is IRRI's policy not to patent either the germplasm collected from farmers' fields or the products of its conven tional breeding work.ifas. The WTO: Five Years of Reasons to Resist Corporate Globalization. 3. World Development Movement. "Understanding the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement': EDIS document FE492.op.globalissues. Anup Shah." Who would determine "extent necessary" were the tribunals of theWTO. Who's Who in Corporate Agribusiness.corporatewatch.pdf. Department of Agriculture. http://www.org. http://www. Plawiuk.orglseedlingl ?id=33.org. The report notes. 7. http://www.

"Soil Movement Advisory". ]. that company. Chicago. for which the company had to pay $3. Inc. United States Supreme Court.M. 19. Inc. http://www. Environmental Assessment Initiative. 13." Also. 9 April 2004. The Guardian. machine.com/ financial/n!ports/07 q 1earn. manufacture.Ct. J. Robert B. June 2003. On documentation of Dow Corning's defective silicone breast implants. Pioneer Hi-Bred. in http://www.M. et al.. "History and Trends in Agricultural Biotechnology Patent Law from a Litigator's Perspective". section 101 of the United States Code (part of the Patent Act) "includes seeds and seed grown plants. 18.".' can get a patent to protect their work. 14.5 billion . or any new and useful improvement thereof. Also for background.PLANTING THE "GARDEN OF EARTHLY DELIGHTS" 249 Farms of Texas. Shapiro. 12 April 1999. April 2000. 281-289. Information Bulletin #3. Ag Supply.edu. Testimonials from Dow Midland employees about effects of dioxin are available on http://www. "CAFC Decision in Pioneer Hi-Bred International. Sease. John Vidal. op. 122 S. Ibid." This section states that "[wlho[mlever invents or discovers any new and useful process. 17.uiuc. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pioneer. Press Release. The issue which the Supreme Court decised in favor of Pioneer HiBred's claim to patent rights for genetically manipulated plants was accepting a ruling of the US Court of Appeals. vs.htm. Inc. 20.pp.. The court concluded that title 35.2001. now named RiceTec. Edmund J. Seeds of Change Symposium Banquet.ipagcon. Sease presents an excellent legal review of the process in Edmund J. Dow Chemical Company. Quarterly Report. "Monsanto Dumped Toxic Waste in UK". cit. or composition of matter.studentsforbhopal. 593. in effect upholding the right of a seed company to achieve iron clad protection for its bioengineered products by allowing general utility patents in addition to a PVPA (Plant Variety Protection Act) certificate. DuPont and Pioneer Hi-Bred International. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 15. Delaware. Merger Completed.E. Ag Supply V. cited in Richard A.E. Melcher et al. 12 February 2007. Biotechnology Law Report.org. caused public outrage by obtaining a patent on Indian and Pakistani Basmati rice:' 12. made some minor modifications on IRRI's IR8 and patented it for exclusive sale in the United States. which had upheld a lower court ruling that patents on Pioneer genetically engineered corn seed were valid. Meryl Nass. University of Illinois. 1 October 1999. "Fields of Genes': Business Week. In early 1998. 16.dow.

Fifth Circuit. 11 June 2003. So the boys started adding polystyrene-now it sticks like shit to a blanket.ch/ abstiml gentechmais_rindersterben. Plaintiff-Appellee Versus Dennis Bates et al. despite the fact it represented 0. 27. Gottfried Glockner. see Implant Veterans of Toxic Exposure. http://www. cit. BBC News. A US Vietnam veteran is attributed with this perverse but descriptive quote about the development of Napalm: "We sure are pleased with those backroom boys at Dow. 31.5% of gross revenues. The Hindu..org/ monsantol agentorange0321 02. World Edition.html. 8 February 2004. "Criminal Investigation of Monsanto Corporation-Cover-up of Dioxin Contamination in Products-Falsification of Dioxin Health Studies". January/February 2001. Gentechnik oder Bauern?. November 1990.organicconsumers. Quoted in Arundhati Roy. January/February 2005. New Zealand. The company refused to cease production of napalm.arge-ja. Investigate.cfrn#What. But then if the gooks jumped under water it stopped burning. The original product wasn't so hot-if the go oks [Vietnamese1were quick they could scrape it off. Gottfried Glockner as interviewed by Klaus Faissner.clara. Klaus Faissner. transcript in home. Der Spiegel. 24. Monsanto's Agent Orange: The Persistent Ghost from the Vietnam War. "Der Genmais und das grosse Rindersterben". 21. 28. Dow Chemical became the symbol of the brutality of the American war machine. "The Loneliness of Noam Chomsky". .at/gentechnik _landwirtschaft_faissner.nbks.htm. Neue Bauernkoordination Schweiz. Dow Agrosciences Lie. United States Court of Appeals. quoted in Meryl Nass. it'll keep on burning right down to the bone so they die anyway from phosphorus poisoning:' See also "Protesting Napalm". yukonmom47.tripod. 29. And just one drop is enough. http://www. so they started adding Willie Peter (white phosphorus) so's to make it burn better. 26.etcgroup. 3 February 2007. See also "The Legacy of Agent Orange". in a letter to the author. 25. Time.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION in damages to thousands of victims.. Cate Jenkins.html. 29 April 2005. ETC Group Communique. 23.S January 1968. 30. BBC News. USEPA Regulatory Development Branch.com/index.org. Zumwalt. 24 August 2003. http://www. op. During the rising antiwar protests which cost Lyndon Johnson his Presidency. It'll burn under water now. Syngenta-The Genome Giant?. Gentechnik Mais. http://www. Elmo R.net/heurekal gaial orange. 22.html#.

"Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2004". The authors conclude: "canola oil is definitely not healthy for the cardiovascular system. "The Case for A GM-Free Sustainable World". "Fields of Genes part 4". and the United Kingdom wanted segregation so that they could label the products appropriately. 39. Ibid. 37.FieldOfGenesTheBattleOverBiotechFoods. the Netherlands.foodfirst. in http://www. European retail and wholesale groups had asked for separate streams for the Roundup Ready. it seems to retard growth. Nexus Magazine.pdf. No. Genetically Modified Crops in the United States.nexusmagazine. 15 June 2003. recently called for Roundup Ready to be segregated from other beans. which is why the FDA does not allow the use of canola oil in infant formula.PLANTING THE "GARDEN OF EARTHLY DELIGHTS" 251 32. Retailers in France.August-September 2002. Hans Kroner.nyenvirolaw.orglprogs/global!ge/isp/ispreport. 35. IS AAA. and shortened lifespan in stroke-prone rats when it was the only oil in the animals' diet. August 2004.203. ." http://www. p. "The Great Con-ola". Clive James. Ibid. canola oil is associated with fibrotic lesions of the heart. 41. NS (7 Dec 1996). http:// www.PDF. representing retailers in 20 European countries. 40.5: "A trade war nearly began between USA and Europe. 2004. Ibid.301. 42.nexusmagazine.html . Ibid. German. secretarygeneral of Eurocommerce. in Nature Biotechnology 14 (1996). and Swedish retailers wanted a separate stream so that they could exclude genetically manipulated food either 'for the foreseeable future' or 'until consumers are happy'. CBC Radio." Cited in Food Safety Including GM Foods. Cate Jenkins.htm. The Pew Charitable Trusts. 33. It also causes vitamin E deficiency. quoted in "Fields of Genes: The Battle over Biotech Foods". Nature 384 (1996). Independent Science Panel. its predecessor. The Monsanto Corporation has been accused of not listening to the groups that would be responsible for marketing their Roundup Ready GMO soybean. Denmark. http://www. Earlier in 1996. This Morning. London. 3-7 May 1999.org.orglPDFICBC-05-06-1999. Sally Falon and Mary Enig. 32. Like grapeseed oil. 36. 1627. 38.com/articles/canola. as they shipped tons of these beans to soy processors in Europe.com. pewagbiotech. Ibid. Austrian. Mae-Wan Ho and Lim Li Ching. 23. 6 May 1999. Finnish. 34. undesirable changes in the blood platelets. eubios. Furthermore.info/NBB/NBBFS.

Will GM Crops Yield More in Australia?. 44. op. et aI. "Unborn Babies Could be Harmed by GMOs': The Independent. 53.net/gordon_conway.centerforfoodsafety.. 20. and Hugh Warwick. 59. p. Ibid. Agriculture Information Bulletin. Universidade Regional do Noroeste do Estado do Rio Grande do SuI. 8 January 2006.html.org. Private e-mail Correspondence.. op. USDA. . http://www. 104. 19-21. Vol. No. US Farmers". op. speech. 2001. 58. 62. cit. 46. pp. cit. Ibid. cit. 27 January 2007. p. Network of Concerned Farmers. Antonio Andrioli. 49. Washington DC. 19-20. Brazil.non-gm-farmers. Gundula Meziani. 51 . 19. Gundula Meziani. 47. Geoffrey Bean. 45. Gundula Meziani. http://www. 55.. pp. "The Seeds of Doubt". 19. Gundula Meziani. 56.cfm. Phil Angell. Ibid. http://www. Andrew Kimbrell. Ibid. Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties (GMO Policy). 25 October 1998. II July 2003.com. quoted in "Playing God in the Garden': New York Times Magazine. Ibid. Charles M. cit. A very comprehensive scientific independent review of the claims and counter-claims of GMO is the study of Mae-Wan Ho and Lim Li Ching. it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety"-Food and Drug Administration. That was a direct contradiction of at least officially published US government policy: "Ultimately.. 60. 17 September 2002.biotech-info. 7-11. Federal Register.orglMonsantovsusfarmersreport. 229. 19-20.soilassociation. The Center for Food Safety. Ibid. Gundula Meziani. 48. op. p. 2005. 54. 57. 52.. p. op. pp. 28 November 2004. http://www. 50. Gordon Conway.1992.252 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION 43. The Soil Association.. 57. Benbrook. provided on request by Friedel Kappes. Ibid.. "Monsanto vs. cit. 24 June 1999. "Biotech Crops Won't Feed Africa's Hungry". The Rockefeller Foundation and Plant Biology. et aI. 61. The New York Times. pp.

orglGE/2004IWambugu-WambuzlingAgain 17mar04. Kenyan biotechnologist Florence Wambugu (see New Scientist. "Three years of field trials have shown that GM sweet potatoes modified to resist a virus were no less vulnerable than ordinary varieties. p. The GM project has cost Monsanto. Cook. 27 May 2000. http://www. 23 December 2002. GM Watch. Lynn J. The article notes.mindfully.PLANTING THE "GARDEN OF EARTHLY DELIGHTS" 253 63. "Millions Served". 64. "Monsanto's Showcase Project in Africa Fails". One of the project members. Embarrassingly. and sometimes their yield was lower." 65. It has been held up worldwide as an example of how GM crops will help revolutionize farming in Africa. 7 February 2004. Also.htm. Ibid. the World Bank and the US government an estimated $6 million over the past decade. New Scientist. GM Watch. See also. 40). according to the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute. 17 March 2004. Forbes. in Uganda conventional breeding has produced a high-yielding variety more quickly and more cheaply. ap. . toured the world promoting the work. cit. Wambugu Wambuzling Again: Says GM Sweet Potato a Resounding Success?.


V Population Control PART .


Delta & Pine Land Seed Company. The seed companies named their innovation GURTs. and had re-used seed for thousands of years before.. Spermicidal Corn B "Two Steps Forward. a reference to Arnold Schwarzenegger's crude and death-ridden Hollywood films. Traitors. backed by the new clout of the WTO and the full support from the White House. They all were working feverishly on a new technology which would allow them to sell seed that would not reproduce. The process was soon known as "Terminator" seeds. it was developed to "protect corporations from unscrupulous farmers" (sic) who might try to re-use patented seed without paying. With financial backing from the US Department of . a US bio-tech company in Scott.CHAPTER 12 Terminators. Mississippi. As one GMO Terminator backer put it. was the largest owner of commercial cotton seeds. the genetic seed giants began to get visibly intoxicated by the possibilities of taking over the world's food supply. No matter that the vast majority of the world's farmers were too poor to afford the Monsanto GMO license and other seed fees. In 1998. short for Genetic Use Restriction Technologies. Then One Step Backward .. " y the end of the 1980's.

especially in developing economies where patent rights were little respected.765 titled "Control of Plant Gene Expression. As one critic put it. Peas. The technology was a beautiful means of enforcing Monsanto or other GMO patent rights and fees. peppers. the cycle that supports most life on the planet. were nicknamed "Traitor.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Agriculture. T-Gurts. rice or corn would essentially become seed cemeteries. or Trait Genetic Use Restriction Technologies. l If farmers tried to save the seeds at harvest for future crops."2 One year later Monsanto announced it was buying Delta & Pine Land. The Terminator seeds would automatically prevent farmers from saving and reusing the seed for the next harvest.' a reference to the plant trait features of the genetic technology used.. They knew it was applicable not only to cotton seeds but to all seeds. the seeds produced by these plants would not grow. . "In one broad. Their joint patent. for its GURT. A second. man will have irretrievably broken the plant-to-seed-to plant-toseed cycle. wheat. Terminator corn. brazen stroke of his hand. The inbuilt gene produced a toxin just before the seed ripened.723. Terminator looked like the answer to the agribusiness dream of controlling world food production. technology. closely related technology which held priority R&D funding by the gene multinationals in the late 1990's was T-GURT seeds. soybeans. the second generation of Terminator. whereby in every seed the plant embryo would self-destruct. or Terminator. The patent applied to plants and seeds of all species. no food .. They had their eyes firmly on getting the Terminator patent. unless you buy more seed. tomatoes." allowed its owners and licensees to create sterile seed by selectively programming a plant's DNA to kill its own embryos. it had won a joint patent together with the US Government. No seed. It was also a word which had a double meaning not lost on its critics. No longer would they need to hire expensive detectives to spy on whether farmers were re-using Monsanto seeds. US patent number 5. or cotton seeds had been genetically modified to "commit suicide" after one harvest season.

SPERMICIDAL CORN 259 Traitor technologies relied on controlling not only the plant's fertility." This promoter can be linked to a gene and introduced into a plant. the gene switch is turned off. These patents allowed "genetic modification of staple crops which will produce disease prone plants (unless treated with chemicals). so the disrupter protein is expressed and plant development is disrupted. control the fertility of crops. Growth of the plant can be controlled by the application or withholding of a chemical inducer. the disrupter protein is not expressed. TRAITORS. Furthermore.e. the repressible promoter is not repressed. If the chemical inducer is withheld. Syngenta. In its US patent application. Farmers trying to buy seed from the "illegal" seed market would not be able to get the special chemical compound needed to "turn on" the plant's resistance gene. Traitor technology offered a unique chance to open an entire new captive market for Monsanto and the others to sell their agrichemicals. One study noted that 11 new patents were held by the newlyformed Syngenta. the repressor is expressed. The gene can be selectively expressed (i. Delta & Pine Land and the USDA stated the method with "an inducible gene promoter that is responsive to an exogenous chemical inducer:' called a "gene switch. Not widely publicized. The official patent application continued. which would only be available from Monsanto. the promoter attached to the disrupter gene is repressed. or other owners of patent rights to the specific Traitor seeds. control when crops sprout. control when plants flower.TERMINATORS. 3 A GMO crop of rice or corn would only be resistant to certain plagues or pests after use of a specific chemical compound. thereby allowing the plant to grow normally. but also its genetic characteristics. control how crops age:'4 . Traitor was cheaper to produce than the complicated Terminator seeds. the fact about Traitor technologies was that with them it was also possible to develop GMO plants that needed to be "turned on" in order to grow or become fertile. activated) by application of the chemical inducer to activate the promoter directly. While the inducer is present.

Delta & Pine Land admitted that the initial reason they developed Terminator technology was to market it to rice and wheat farmers in countries such as India. in a revealing but little-noticed statement.260 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION By the year 2000 Syngenta had the single largest interest in GURTs of all the global GMO companies. The USDA and Pine Land Co. farmers purchased elite seeds that provided only one harvest. 8 At the time. Pakistan and China. Monsanto was determined to change that. companies are often reluctant to make research investments in many crops. For the first time in history. The implications of Terminator and Traitor technology in the hands of the GMO agribusiness giants were difficult to grasp. absent. also applied for patents in some 78 other countries. it would allow three or four private multinational seed companies to dictate terms to world farmers for their . 5 Under the Terminator joint agreement between the USDA and Delta & Pine Land. they cannot recoup their multi-year investment in developing improved varieties through sales in one year. D&PL had exclusive licensing rights. 7 The US Government defended its patent on GURTs. TPS would protect investments made in breeding or genetically engineering these crops. Delta & Pine Land said in its press release that the technology had "the prospect of opening significant worldwide seed markets to the sale of transgenic technology for crops in which seed currently is saved and used in subsequent plantings:'6 In practice. the seeds from this harvest were sterile. while the USDA would earn about 5 percent of the net sales of any commercial product using the technology. It would do this by reducing potential sales losses from unauthorized reproduction and sale of seed. however. or nonelite and the farmer must buy either seed or trait-maintenance chemical compound from the company. The official backing of the US Government gave the patent application huge leverage that a small private company would lack abroad. which they named TPS for the benign-sounding "Technology Protection System": Because of this seed-saving practice.

in some parts of the world-to purchase a new variety.9 In the hands of one or more governments intent on using food as a weapon. . rice. Ministers were delivering Sunday sermons on the moral implications of Terminator. and may not need to go back to the seed company for several years-or longer. News of the planned takeover became a public relations disaster for Monsanto. and cotton. Farmers often save the seeds from these crops. Monsanto. the companies stated. farmers were organizing protests. The move would make Monsanto the unquestioned leader in genetic Terminator technology.4 billion farmers worldwide-l00 million in Latin America. Newspaper headlines around the world portrayed it as exactly what it was-an attempt by a private corporation to control the seed supply of world farmers. and 1 billion in Asia-and are responsible for growing between 15 and 20 percent of the world's food supply. citizens were in open opposition to GMO because of the Terminator threat and its implications for food security. and because of the fact that the US and other patent offices had decided to grant exclusive patents to Monsanto and Syngenta for several different varieties of Terminator."IO The Guardian Angel Saves the GMO Project An ensuing public uproar over the prospect of major private seed multinationals controlling seeds through Terminator technology threatened the very future of the entire Gene Revolution. 300 million in Africa. "seed savers number an estimated 1. announced it would buy Delta & Pine Land. soybeans. which had already gotten one patent on Terminator gene technology six months earlier. governments were holding public hearings on the new development in gene technology. There are several major crops which usually are not grown from hybrid seeds. These include wheat.TERMINATORS. TRAITORS. SPERMICIDAL CORN 261 seed. Across the European Union. Terminator was a tool of biological warfare almost "too good to believe:' In their US patent applications. The widespread and growing protest against the obvious potential for misuse of Terminator suicide seeds took on a new character in May 1998.

Shapiro added that." We are doing this based on input from you and a wide range of other experts and stakeholders. worked out together with Rockefeller Foundation's Conway.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION The growing opposition to genetically modified foods. fed by the negative publicity given to the Terminator seed. led to a dramatic intervention by the guardian angel of the GMO global project. earliest perhaps in 2007. it was a shrewd tactical deception. where he said."12 He was referring to Traitor technologies. Only for an undefined time would there be a moratorium on "commercialization. held a press conference where he announced that the company had decided to stop the process of commercializing the Terminator technology. In reality. Shapiro made clear in his public statement that he was not about to give up such a weapon over seed supply without a fight." The world's press covered it as a major victory for the side of reason and social justice. "Monsanto holds patents on technological approaches to gene protection that do not render seeds sterile and has studied one that would inactivate the specific gene responsible for the valueadded biotech trait."13 . such as the one dubbed "Terminator. He made clear to them that what was at stake was to demand Monsanto not to persist in developing and commercializing Terminator seed technologies. 1999. On October 4. 11 Monsanto listened carefully to Conway." The commercial stage of Terminator at that point was believed at least several more years away. Shapiro repeated his position in an Open Letter that month to Rockefeller Foundation President Conway. Shapiro. "We are not currently investing resources to develop these technologies. Monsanto's Shapiro did not back off or reject the chance to develop Terminator in the future. "We are making a public commitmen't not to commercialize sterile seed technologies. Monsanto CEO. For those who bothered to read the fine print. so little would be lost for Monsanto and much would be won in terms of public relations. Gordon Conway. In September 1999. the Rockefeller Foundation President. Monsanto had in fact given up nothing. Robert B. He declared that. took the highly unusual step of asking to personally address the Board of Directors of Monsanto.

Monsanto announced that it had called off plans to take over Delta & Pine Land as well. while Rockefeller's Conway and Monsanto Corporation were making headlines with their declarations on Terminator suspension. 14 Syngenta announced at the same time that it was also declaring a moratorium on the commercialization of Terminator. USDA spokesman Willard Phelps had declared the US Government policy on Terminator seeds.TERMINATORS. The press paid no attention to this. however. SPERMICIDAL CORN 263 "But:' he stressed. adding that it would. as it would have been easy and uncomplicated for the USDA to follow the gene giants by declaring its own moratorium. 15 The Terminator technology was being supported at the highest levels of the US government to target agriculture in the Second and Third World. the partner in Terminator with Delta & Pine Land. "we do not rule out their future development . Notably. the deception had apparently worked." He added that the Government's aim was "to increase the value of proprietary seed owned by US seed companies and to open up new markets in Second and Third World countries:' The USDA was open about its reasons. made no such commitment. It wanted to get Terminator seeds into the developing world. Shortly after that statement. The heat was off the Terminator controversy. This was indeed curious. continue with its Traitor developments. as press headlines about Terminator began to disappear from view. Monsanto's news was the headline story. where the Rockefeller Foundation had put eventual proliferation of genetically engineered crops at the heart of its GMO strategy from the beginnings of its r!ce genome project in 1984. The USDA microbiologist primarily responsible . and use for gene protection or their possible agronomic benefits" (emphasis added). the US Department of Agriculture. In a June 1998 interview. DuPont and the other seed giants to market their GMO seeds in targeted developing countries. TRAITORS. All appeared to signal the death of Terminator. It would make it "safe" for Monsanto. He explained that the USDA wanted the technology to be "widely licensed and made expeditiously available to many seed companies.

and to make us competitive in the face of foreign competition. Monsanto used the smuggling of GMO soybeans to its advantage. working with the illegal GMO soy producers to pressure the Lula da Silva government to legalise the crop. the Rockefeller Foundation's support for introduction of gene technologies in targeted developing countries. while demanding they pay royalties. Once the GMO soy became legal in Brazil. first. companies like Monsanto were accused by local farmers of illegally smuggling GMO seeds into regions like Brazil or Poland. The development by Monsanto was increasingly being seen by the world as a kind of Trojan Horse for Western GMO seed giants to get control over Third World food supplies in areas with weak or non-existent patent laws. The coherence between the 1974 Henry Kissinger NSSM 200 population control policies in the developing world. that the target for Terminator seeds were the populations and farmers of the developing world. Traitor and related technologies. perhaps carelessly so. was also beginning to dawn on a broader thinking public. Our mission is to protect US agriculture." 16 Together with Delta & Pine Land. Monsanto was shrewd. In some cases.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION for developing Terminator with D&PL. Without this. openly admitted: "My main interest is the protection of American technology. The Rockefeller-Monsanto public moratorium announcement in October 1999 was a calculated ploy to direct attention elsewhere. there is no way of protecting the technology [patented seed]. Meanwhile. . In the case of Brazil. as the Rockefeller Foundation understood it. and the development of a technology which would allow the private multinationals owning the patents on vital staple seed varieties. The USDA admitted openly. the urgent priority for the time was to spread GMO seeds worldwide in order. Melvin Oliver. precisely the Rockefeller Foundation's long-standing goal of promoting GMO. while the seed companies continued their perfection of Terminator. to capture huge markets and to make the use of patented GMO seeds irreversible. in order to later claim that farmers had "illegally" used their patented seed. the USDA had applied for Terminator patents in 78 countries.

the USDA Agricultural . Were the world to wake up to what was possible with GMO seeds. GMO seeds had barely assumed a significant share in the US seed market. it might rebel while it still could. was at that time minimal. The entire Gene Revolution project of the Rockefeller Foundation and its corporate and political allies was in danger of flying off the track if Monsanto persisted with the public development of Terminator. and Monsanto got the message. Rockefeller in effect imposed a higher discipline on Monsanto. Terminator developments never stopped after 1999. Mexico and many African nations had strict bans on GMO imports or cultivation." 18 Neither did their partner. back down after 1999. SPERMICIDAL CORN 265 Monsanto moved in to put an end to the "black market". with occasional exceptions such as Argentina. While Monsanto did abandon merger talks with Delta & Pine Land in late 1999. We never really slowed down. Delta & Pine and the USDA continued with their full program to perfect Terminator and Traitor technologies.TERMINATORS. TRAITORS. the United States Department of Agriculture. Their proliferation in developing countries. We're on target. 17 Rockefeller's Conway clearly realized that the entire strategy of achieving global control over the food supply was being jeopardized in its most fragile stages by the relentless drive of Monsanto to promote its Terminator technology. Monsanto worked out an agreement with producer organisations and soybean crushers. In 1999. moving ahead to commercialize it. cooperatives and exporters. Delta Vice President. Brazil. In 2001. "We've continued right on with work on the Technology Protection System (TPS or Terminator). to force Brazilian farmers to pay royalties. In order to save the entire project. declared in a press interview to his GMO trade peers in the Agrallndustrial Biotechnology Legal Letter. Harry Collins. This was the evident reasoning behind the rare event of the Rockefeller Foundation's public intervention. The European Union had imposed a ban or moratorium on licensing GMO plants. With the government offering an amnesty to farmers who registered their crops as GMO soy. We never really backed off.

.. . not to assist companies to use it"-as if to say." This time they referred to Terminator or GURTs as "a possible technical solution" to problems of plant contamination. In August 2001. the USDA announced that it had signed a license agreement with its partner. In February 2004. economic and geographical areas. allowing D&PL to commercialize the Terminator technology for its cotton seeds. Our involvement has been to help develop the technology. so that its benefits will accrue to all segments of society . The public outcry this time was mute..2001 completely buried the USDA announcement. the umbrella association for the industry....266 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Research Service CARS) website announced: "USDA has no plans to introduce TPS into any germplasm . Monsanto had begun to repackage Terminator as an "ecological plus:' Rather than stress the seed control aspect.. After the Terminator furor had died down in June 2003. When new applications are at the appropriate stage of development. ARS intends to do research on other applications of this unique gene control discovery .. this technology will also be transferred to the private sector for commercial application. Monsanto began to promote Terminator or GURTs as a way to control the spread of GMO seeds by wind or pollination and the contamination of nonGMO crops. The world suddenly had other concerns."2o Terminator was alive and well in the hands of US Government. Roger Krueger of Monsanto wrote a paper together with Harry Collins of Delta & Pine Land in the magazine of the International Seed Federation."19 They weren't. "our hands are clean.. Delta & Pine Land. Their article dismissed all worries about the dangers of Terminator or GURT seeds as "conjecture:' and declared that "GURTs have the potential to benefit farmers in all size. The USDA went on to say it was "committed to making the [Terminator1technology as widely available as possible. and days later the events of September 11. The issue had fallen off the public radar screen.

Among their techniques of persuasion.TERMINATORS. TRAITORS. coercion. " As soon as the furor around Terminator seeds had vanished from the headlines of the world's press. USAID ignored that small fact and pressed ahead. They were instructed by USAID.000 tons of US soybean-corn blend on the grounds that it might contain genetically modified foods which could be hazardous to human health and which had not been adequately tested. the genetic seed companies employed bribery. The import. 21 To help Monsanto. The European Union issued an official protest at the US Government's "use of food aid donations used as surplus disposal measures. usually a potent threat against poor countries. to immediately report to them any opposition in a recipient country... a Government agency. and illegal smuggling of their GMO seeds into country after country to "spread the Gospel of GMO salvation:' In 2002. began employing increasingly coercive tactics to force GMO seeds down the throats of the world population. The US State Department and US Department of Agriculture coordinated to give emergency famine relief aid in the form of genetically modified US surplus commodities. In early 2003. the Government of India refused to allow import of 1. the US Government had recourse to the WTO or to the threat ofWTO sanctions against the aid recipient country. to GMO food imports. 23 . through the American food aid organizations CARE and Catholic Relief Services. as it destroyed a country's local agricultural economy in the process of opening new markets for Monsanto and friends. had thus not been approved. They were told to collect documentation to determine if the anti-GMO attitude of the local government was "trade or politically motivated:' If they determined it was trade motivated. in concert with the US Government. DuPont and the other US seed giants spread GMO seeds."22 Washington ignored the protest. a practice condemned by international aid organizations. the major gene seed companies. especially in the developing world. SPERMICIDAL CORN 267 "Push it Down Their Bloody Throats . the State Department instructed all its aid agencies to act as international policemen.

the London Guardian reported that the US Government offered emergency famine relief aid during a severe drought.000 tons of non-GMO cereals."25 The farmers where the GMO seeds were taken. The United States was practically the only donor country insisting on use of its own food surplus for food aid. as Monsanto or DuPont or another of the seed giants would later remind them. They eat them. by whatever means necessary. Andrew Natsios. EU and other food aid donors gave the respective countries cash to buy their food on the open market instead. "[ t 1 here is no shortage of nonGMO foods which could be offered to Zambia. unaware for the most part of what seed they had gotten.268 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION The practice long established by international aid agencies was to buy their food supplies on the open market. Dr. including corn. although ample conventional corn was available on the market. citing possible health hazards. was questioned by the press. the customary international practice in such situations of famine. The UN claimed that 160. of course. if possible from farmers in the recipient country or in neighboring countries. "starving people do not plant seeds. It carried no GMO label. to six countries in southern Africa. 24 Corn was the staple food in that region of Africa. an agronomist and former Executive Director of the US National Academy of Sciences Board on Agriculture. and to use the needs of Zambians to score 'political points' on behalf of biotechnology was unethical and indeed shameless. Washington had another agenda: spread the use of GMO seeds as far and wide and as fast as possible. Kenya and nearby states for relief aid."27 . replied that. aid worth $266 million. Zambia. Malawi and Zimbabwe all refused the GMO corn. In October 2002. he snapped back. USAID mandated that US-based food aid organizations ship only grain provided by USAID. which meant genetically modified US grain. 26 Referring to the USAID pressure on Zambia to accept US GMO corn as famine aid. were available in neighbouring South Africa. planted the seed for a next harvest. it offered it only in the form of genetically modified corn from US surplus stocks. However. When USAID Administrator. Charles Benbrook.

in the midst of a severe drought." The British aid organization. bribery and illegal tactics to spread their seeds from Poland to Indonesia and beyond. "farmers will be caught in a vicious circle. Agribusiness companies like Monsanto and Cargill were clearly salivating at the prospects of using their industrial factory farming and GMO plant cultivation. demanded that Malawi's Government sell off its state emergency food reserves in order to repay their foreign debts due in 2002. denounced the efforts by the United States to force GMO technology into Africa. Syngenta and the other major genetic seed companies used similar forms of coercion. In Indonesia."28 That was precisely the plan. Malawi had no food to feed its starving population. Science Adviser to Britain's Prime Minister. declaring.000 in bribes to a senior Indonesian Government official to bypass controls on screening new genetically modified . Africa was not the only target for the worldwide proliferation of GMO seeds in the early months of the new millennium. Professor David King. ActionAid. George W. USAID shipped 250. Monsanto was forced to plead guilty to criminal charges of paying $50. 29 Bush was upping the heat on the EU to lift its 1997 ban on GMO plants. unscientific fears. calling it a "massive human experiment.TERMINATORS. Bush threw the considerable weight of his office to back the campaign at a G8 European Summit in June 2003. Southern Africa had some of the richest most fertile soil in the world. increasingly dependent on a small number of giant multinationals for patented seeds. SPERMICIDAL CORN 269 In 2001. TRAITORS. criticized the US action. However. DuPont. Only a few tens of millions of poor African citizens stood in the way. the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.000 metric tons of surplus US GMO corn. abundant supplies of fresh water and a benign climate. This has caused many African nations to avoid investing in bio-technologies for fear that their products will be shut out of European markets. two organizations dominated by Washington. Predictably. Monsanto. in which he stated: Our partners in Europe have blocked all new bio-crops because of unfounded.

Monsanto was accused of illegally smuggling and planting large quantities of GMO soybean seed into the country. the seeds would spread rapidly across the land. Dow. The Government finally lifted a ban on GMO plants in early 2005. highly indebted African and other developing countries. with priority on defenceless. Ever so Softly.270 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION cropS. At a later date. Killing Us Softly With . to give or deny the means of life sustenance as they saw fit.31 Killing Us Softly. would be in a position to dominate the seed supply of the major growing areas of the planet. DuPont and the Washington Government backing them was to introduce the GMO seeds in every corner of the globe. The Gene Revolution was marching forward by all means possible. foodor be threatened with denial. 30 In Poland. Epicyte reported that they had successfully . such a capacity was called the power of "strategic denial. privately-owned biotech company. the GMO seed multinationals. stating it was futile to try to control the spread. unless they agreed to certain policy demands by those controlling the resource. In intelligence parlance. Monsanto and the other major agribusiness corporations were illegally planting GMO seeds in a country with one of the richest soils in Europe.. In Brazil. how did this prospect map onto the long-term strategy of the Rockefeller Foundation. In San Diego. A Very Special Kind of Corn The question then became. a small. Monsanto later was found guilty and forced to pay a fine. Ford Foundation and major figures in the US establishment for global population reduction? A possible answer was soon to be found." A potential enemy or rival would be denied a strategic resource-energy or. held a press conference in September 2001 to make an announcement about its work. using threats of WTO sanctions.. in this case. Once planted. Court records revealed that the bribe had been authorized in the US headquarters of Monsanto. Epicyte. or countries like Poland and Ukraine where government controls were minimal and official corruption rampant. The clear strategy of Monsanto.

CBS News reported that the United States Department of Agriculture. 33 At the time of this dramatic announcement. 32 "We have a hothouse filled with corn plants that make anti-sperm antibodies. 36 Previously. TRAITORS. had also financed 32 field trials around the country for growing drug and drug compounds in various crops. had inserted the genes into ordinary corn seeds used to produce corn plants. 34 Epicyte had also signed a collaboration with Novartis Agriculture Discovery Institute (Syngenta) and with ReProtect LLC of Baltimore to develop other antibody-based microbicides for contraception. They had taken antibodies from women with a rare condition known as immune infertility. the production of antibodies for contraception purposes required costly facilities costing up to four hundred million dollars for ultra-sterile special fermentation conditions. Epicyte and the Dow organizations had agreed to a four year program to investigate factors affecting expression. the same agency of the US Government that had been so vigorous in developing Terminator technology. they announced at the time. using .TERMINATORS. was to combine Epicyte's technological breakthroughs with Dow AgroSciences' "strength in the genetic engineering of crops. stability and accumulation of antibodies in transgenic plants. What was not revealed was that the USDA was also providing the field trial results to scientists at the US Department of Defense through one of their numerous biological research laboratories such as the Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center in Maryland. 2002. SPERMICIDAL CORN 271 created the ultimate GMO crop-contraceptive corn. 35 On October 6. which went largely uncommented by the world's major media. Mitch Hein. one of the three agribusiness genetic seed giants in the US." Epicyte's product-candidate antibodies were being transformed in corn. and. using genetic engineering techniques. The purpose of that joint venture. The US Government field trials included Epicyte's spermicidal corn technology. Epicyte had concluded a strategic joint research and licensing agreement with Dow Chemical Company through Dow AgroSciences.' boasted Epicyte President. isolated the genes that regulated the manufacture of those infertility antibodies.

Mexican farmers were already in an uproar over the unauthorized spread of genetically engineered corn into the heart of the Mexican corn seed treasure in Oaxaca. 39 It took little effort to imagine the impact were corn-which was the dietary staple of most Mexicans-to contain Epicyte's spermicidal antibodies. when consumed. Epicyte estimated the commercial availability of its spermicidal corn would come in 2006 or 2007. would make human male sperm sterile. which they presented as a contribution to the world "over-population" problem. "Some spermicidal corn on the cob? Or perhaps a killer tortilla. mister?" Or what about that next bowl of corn flakes? The creator of the Kellogg's Corn Flakes company was also a founding patron of the American Eugenics Society almost a century before. a cost reduction of some 90%. themselves enormously wealthy and largely untaxed thanks to Bush Administration tax cuts. After the press release.31 At the time of their brief public announcement. the discussion of Epicyte's breakthrough in creating spermicidal corn which would kill human sperm vanished. backed the introduction of genetically modified seeds into the world food chain as a strategic priority. Rockefeller. That elite included not only the Rockefeller and Ford foundations and most other foundations tied to the large private family fortunes . The company itself was taken over in May 2004 by a private Pittsboro. Epicyte claimed it needed only perhaps 100 acres of corn land to grow the special GMO spermicidal corn producing a vastly greater quantity of antibody for the spermicide at a cost of a mere few million dollars. Rumors were that the research continued on secret basis because of the politically explosive impact of a corn variety which.3 8 Nothing more was heard in any media about the development of spermicidal corn and the theme vanished from view. North Carolina biotech company.272 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION hamster ovarian bacteria as the antibody source. along with John D. a From Terminator Suicide Seeds to Spermicidal Corn It was becoming clear why powerful elite circles of the United States. Biolex thus acquired Epicyte Pharmaceutical.

became suspicious of the motives behind the WHO program and decided to test numerous vials of the vaccine and found them to contain human Chorionic Gonadotrophin." They were out to limit population by going after the human reproductive process itself. the Philippines and other poorer developing countries. TRAITORS. Rockefeller and the World Health Organization The folks at the Rockefeller Foundation were deadly serious about wanting to solve the world hunger problem through the worldwide proliferation of GMO seeds and crops. Comite Pro Vida de Mexico. Mexico and the Philippines. the WHO oversaw massive vaccination campaigns against tetanus in Nicaragua. a Roman Catholic lay organization. the US Department of Agriculture. They had worked with WHO researchers since 1972 to develop a new double-whammy vaccine. Tetanus. as well as the leading policy circles of the International Monetary Fund. It was no spur of the moment decision by the people at Rockefeller. the World Bank. The tetanus disease was indeed. or hCG. It also included the US State Department.40 In the early 1990's. That was a curious component for a vaccine designed to protect people against lock-jaw arising from infection with rusty nail wounds or other contact with certain bacteria found in soil. Only their presumed method to do so aimed at a "supply side" solution rather than the "demand side. SPERMICIDAL CORN 273 of the wealthiest American families. along with agencies of the United Nations including WHO and FAO.TERMINATORS. The foundation had quietly funded a WHO program in "reproductive health. Nicaragua. Nor could they claim to be unaware of the true nature of their research funding.' which had developed an innovative tetanus vaccine.4l . also rather rare. according to a report from the Global Vaccine Institute. the National Security Council. For any skeptics who doubted their intent. at the same time during which the foundation had been funding research in other bio-technology areas including genetically engineered cropS. they needed only to look at the foundation's work with the United Nations' World Health Organization in Mexico.

even though one tetanus injection held for at least ten years. 45 The respected British medical journal. Helsinki University. The list also included the US Government. it stimulated the formation of antibodies against hCG. the UN Development Program and the Ford Foundation.' confirmed the findings of the Comite Pro Vida de Mexico. 1988 article entitled "Clinical Trials of a WHO Birth Control Vaccine. The WHO clearly intended it that way. a part of National Institutes of Health (NIH). However. and Ohio State University. 44 Among those "others" involved in funding the WHO research was a list which included the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. Why a Tetanus Toxoid "Carrier"? Because the human body does not attack its own naturally occurring hormone hCG. rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy. Pro Vida dug further and learned that the Rockefeller Foundation. It was not given to men or childrenY Furthermore. Rockefeller Ill's Population Council. None of the women receiving the Tetanus hCG vaccine were told it contained an abortion agent. it was usually given in a series of three vaccinations only months apart to insure that women had a high enough dosage of hCG. The tetanus vaccine had been given only to women in the child-bearing ages between 1545. 42 The Comite Pro Vida organization confirmed several other curious facts about the WHO vaccination program. when combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier.274 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION It was also curious because hCG was a natural hormone needed to maintain a pregnancy. through its National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. the body has to be fooled into treating hCG as an invading enemy in order . and others had been working with the WHO for 20 years to develop an anti-fertility vaccine using hCG with tetanus as well as with other vaccines. including Uppsala in Sweden. working with John D. The Lancet. The latter US Government agency supplied the hCG hormone in some of the anti-fertility vaccine experiments. The presence of hCG was a clear contamination of the vaccine. and a number of universities. the World Bank. Similar reports of vaccines laced with hCG hormones came from the Philippines and Nicaragua. in a June 11. a form of concealed abortion.

promulgated under the name of "solving the world hunger problem. and control of darker-skinned races by an Anglo- . If you can't deny the message. where all four tested positive for hCG. was part of the French pharmaceutical Rhone Poulenc group. TRAITORS. Luke's Lutheran Medical Center in Manila." The Hidden GMO Agenda Emerges The US and UK governments' relentless backing for the global spread of genetically modified seeds was in fact the implementation of a decades long policy of the Rockefeller Foundation since the 1930's. SPERMICIDAL CORN 275 to develop a successful anti-fertility vaccine utilizing hCG antibodies. 46 By mid-1993. Among other research projects. WHO officials declined to explain why women they had vaccinated had developed anti-hCG antibodiesY They dismissed the findings of Pro Vida by claiming the charges were coming from "Right to Life and Catholic sources. the officials at WHO shifted. Talwar." as if that should indicate some fatal bias. the WHO had spent a total of $365 million of its scarce research funds on what it euphemistically dubbed "reproductive health:' including research on implanting hCG into tetanus vaccines. when it funded Nazi eugenics research-i. It was in fact a sophisticated form of what the Pentagon termed biological warfare. one of the world's largest producers of vaccines. The WHO now claimed the hCG had come from the manufacturing process.TERMINATORS. one of the scientists involved.e. Intervex and CSL Laboratories of Australia. according G. mass-scale population reduction. When four additional vials of the tetanus vaccine used on women in the Philippines were sent to St. The vaccine had been produced by Connaught Laboratories Ltd of Canada. Population reduction and genetically engineered crops were clearly part of the same broad strategy: the drastic reduction of the world's population. Connaught was engaged in producing a genetically engineered version of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Connaught. at least try to discredit the messenger.P.

of the College of Aerospace Doctrine. Citing the Russian threat." And that was in 1925. building new deadly strains . :'51 Back in the 1980's around the time the Rockefeller Foundation launched its major genetic engineering rice project."49 Kadlec then went on to state that. In this context. Anthrax to slay horses and cattle . the start of the Gene Revolution. harder to detect .SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Saxon white elite.. UK. Kadlec."50 The biological weapons and genetic engineering research project. the US Pentagon quietly initiated military applications of biotechnology. the biowarfare potential of genetically engineered crops. "Compared with other mass destruction weapons. He referred to GMO-based biological weapons as "cost-effective" weapons of mass destruction.. biological weapons offer greater possibilities for use than do nuclear weapons.. Lt. USAF. in stark contrast to a low-estimate of $200 million for developing a single nuclear weapon. discussed in a book written in the 1990's. As some of these circles saw it.. Genetic engineering can be used to broaden the classical bio-weapons arsenal ... In 1925. Sunshine Project.. He wrote that. in highly classified research.. war as a means of population reduction was costly and not that efficient.. reported that "researchers in the USA. biological weapons are cheap. Research and Education. Blight to destroy crops. Col. "Using biological weapons under the cover of an endemic or natural disease occurrence provides an attacker the potential for plausible denial.. writing about the desirability of the government being able to produce "pestilences methodically prepared and deliberately launched upon man and beast . Russia and Germany have genetically engineered biological weapons agents... a robust racist.48 Reflecting the discussion in US senior military circles. A recent Office of Technology Assessment report paces the cost of a BW (biological weapon) arsenal as low as $10 million . Battlefield of the Future. commented favorably on the potential for biological warfare. Britain's Winston Churchill. bacteria can not only be made resistant to antibiotics or vaccines.. US military researchers.. began using the new .. Robert P. they can also be made more toxic.

In one of his first acts after taking office in January 2001.TERMINATORS. largely ignoring the Administration's significant refusal to cooperate on banning biological and toxic weapons."53 "We're tempted to say that nobody in their right mind would ever use these things:' remarked Stanford University biophysicist. "not everybody is in their right mind . however. GMO spermicides and other developments of the Gene Revolution. Professor Steven Block. submissiveness or temporary blindness. a man with years of personal experience with classified Pentagon and Government biological research. Bush announced that he refused to support a legally binding Biological and Toxic Weapons Protocol (BTWC). Significantly. Among the projects researched was a genetically modified refined opium-like substance.. in the context of Terminator. to the Bush rejection of Kyoto. SPERMICIDAL CORN 277 genetic engineering techniques. 52 The bio-weapons protocol was a major issue among the list of things the new administration in Washington unilaterally rejected. and at the same time refused to accept the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and CO 2 emissions. anxiety. :'54 . TRAITORS. leading to collapse of those international talks. The media dutifully turned its focus. the Bush Administration rejected a ban on further bio-weapons development. A 2004 study by the British Medical Association concluded that the world was perhaps only a few years away from "terrifying biological weapons capable of killing only people of specific ethnic groups:' citing advances in "genetic weapons technology. Little reason was given. "But:' Block added. whose minute presence induced sleep. .

uspto. 11 . cited in http://www. 8.uk/news/ukshowlib. Shapiro. Shapiro To Rockefeller Foundation President Gordon Conway and Others. Bloomington. 14. http://www. Martha L. March 3. Genetics Forum. op. 10 March 1998. 13. The Ark Institute. cit. op. Control of Plant Gene Expression. Ibid.723.ibiblio. Ibid.orglpipermaiUpermaculture/ 1999-January/005941. Interview with RAFl (now ETC). Melvin John Oliver.4 October 1999. Crouch. 1. Syngenta: Switching off Farmers' Rights?..html.htm.cooperativeresearch. Oliver. 16. 9. Bern. ISB News Report. 10D. 7. Cooperative Research. http://www. cit. 5 June 1998. 3.co. http://www. "The Seeds of Warning for Biotech Companies". Melvin John Oliver et al. Hugh Warwick. "Re-emerging Biotechnologies: Rehabilitating the Terminator". March 1998. Food Supply Update: June 5.1998". 15. detailed description of the invention in http://patftl. Willard Phelps. quoted in RAFl Communique. October 2000. . Ibid. 29 March 2004. Melvin J. 12.765. USA Today. Patent no.mindfully. USDA spokesman. USA Today. 3 March 1998. 29 June 1999. Indiana University. 6. United States Patent.cropchoice.com/98/up0606. Open Letter From Monsanto CEO Robert B.html?recid=694. http://www.monsanto. 10.htm#exec.comlleadstry7f4c. 3 March 1998.org/GE/Syngenta-Switching-OffRights. Indiana.gov.org/ en tity. 1998: Patent on Terminator Seeds Granted. lists. USDA molecular biologist and primary inventor of the technology.j sp? en ti ty=us_ departmen C oC agriculture. 2. June 2002. p. Robert B. 5. "Seed Terminator and Mega-Merger Threaten Food and Freedom. Zac Hanley and Kieran Elborough. Geri Guidetti.phtml?uid=9949. How the Terminator Terminates. 1998. USPTO Patent Database. 4..arkinstitute. US Patent and Technology Office. United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service. 5.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Notes 1.

co. Jonathan Birchall. TRAITORS. "The pregnancy prevention plants are the handiwork of the San Diego biotechnology company Epicyte. 21. BBC News. SPERMICIDAL CORN 279 17. Ibid. Press release. 25.orglprobobstarch.org/GE/ 2003/USAID-Report-AntiGMI4jan03.psrast. By isolating the genes that regulate the manufacture of these antibodies. http:// news.bbc. 23. Ashok B. The Financial Express (India).stm. where researchers have discovered a rare class of human antibodies that attack sperm. 27 September 2002. John Vidal.htm.grain. April 2004. The Observer. op. 14 January 2003. "GMO Corn Set to Stop Man Spreading His Seed". Bush: Africa Hostage to GM Fears. WTO and Agriculture: European Commission Proposes More Market Opening. Sharma. quoted in "Southern Africa's Food Aid Crisis Shamelessly Engineered to Score 'Political Points' Says Leading US Agronomist". The Observer. 18. ngin. Robin McKie.' Reuters. "Confronting Contamination: 5 Reasons to Reject Co-existence.uki2/hi/americas/3050855. 22.com/270902a. 32. Problems with Genetically Engineered Food Archive: RAFI Says Terminator Seeds on Fast Track. cit. and by putting them in corn plants. 7 January 2005. GRAIN. 29 March 2004. Ibid.htm. quoted in Jaan Suurktila. "US Dumping Unsold GMO Food on Africa". 28. 22 May 2003. Contamination in Argentina and Brazil pays off for Monsanto". http://www. McKie writes. Ibid. 9 September 2001. op. the company has created tiny horticultural factories that make con- . The Guardian. Charles Benbrook. 26. 29. 30.orglseedling. Sharma. 24. Ashok B. Norfolk Genetic Information Network. Seedling. 27. Less Trade Distorting Support and a Radically Better Deal for Developing Countries. http://www.5 Million Over Crop Bribe". 7 March 2005. 31. RAFI. Financial Times (London). 25 February 2000.mindfully.tripod.htm. "Environmentalists Fear Brazil's Lifting of GMO Ban. "US Aid Agencies Instructed to Report Anti-GM Nations to USAID". 1 September 2002. http://www. 16 December 2002. European Commission. Andrew Hay. 7 October 2002. "Blair Urges Crackdown on Third World Profiteering". 19.TERMINATORS. United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service.. cit. Mark Townsend. 20. "Indonesia: Monsanto Agrees to US $1.

Epicyte Enter Research. Dow. June-July 1995. W..pdf. "Vaccines for Fertility Regulation:' Chapter 11.comandhttp:/ /www. "A birth control vaccine incorporating a synthetic peptide antigen representing the aminoacid sequence . 46. James A. PRNewswire. Epicyte Receives SBIR Grant to Fund HPV Antibody Development. cit. 40. The authors write. 41. Z Magazine. II June 1988. potentially . Thirty surgically sterilised female volunteers.. Human Life International. received two intramuscular injections six weeks apart.muhammadfarms.R. The author cites details of official WHO articles on birth control vaccines including. Geneva. http://www. Maryland.. Ibid. The Lancet. Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction. op. 38. See also Business Wire. S'ra DeSantis. Contraceptive corn is based on research on the rare condition. "Epicyte: Company of the Month': The San Diego Biotech Journal. Wyatt Andrews.com/JournaIlJun200 1/juneartA200 l . et aI.. June 2001. 6 May 2004. http://www. 37. Biennial Report. It just shakes about as if it was doing the lambada. 1986-1987. Miller. in which a woman makes antibodies that attack sperm . The San Diego Biotech Journal. ''Are New Vaccines Laced With Birth-Control Drugs?". Miller. "Phase 1 Clinical Trials of a World Health Organisation Birth Control Vaccine". Over a six-month follow-up . Marks Fifth Grant for Epicyte to Develop Sexual Health Products. Licensing Agreement.biotechjournal. See http://www. 34.. CBS News." 33.biolex. "In Coming Harvests. divided into five equal groups for different vaccine doses. 5 September 2000.. WHO Special Programme of Research. 11 June 1988. HLI Reports. "Mexico: Genetically Modified Organisms Threaten Indigenous Corn". cit. 36. 8 October 2002. pp. James A. Gaithersburg. Farm-aceutical Corn". Ibid. Essentially.280 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION traceptives . ofhuman chorionic gonadotropin (hCG-beta) was submitted to a phase 1 clinical trial. the antibodies are attracted to surface receptors on the sperm:' said Hein. 1295-1298. 43. "They latch on and make each sperm so heavy it cannot move forward.. 1988.. Ibid.htm. WHO. Jones. Company Press Release. Biolex Acquires San Diego Based Epicyte Pharmaceutical. July-August 2002. 45. 35. pp.com/News-Oct6-12-2002.. Ibid. 42. immune infertility. 44.com 39.epicyte. op. 177-198. 5 June 2001. Research in Human Reproduction. "Clinical Trials of a WHO Birth Control Vaccine': The Lancet.

news-service. Amsterdam..org/ bwintro/gebw. 50..html. TRAITORS.af. Talwar. 5l. 14 October 200 l. In the highest vaccine dose group. cit.P. 1992-1993. the results gave promise of a contraceptive effect of six months' duration. 1994. "Biological Warfare Emerges as 21stCentury Threat". 23l. Robert P. http://www.html." Also. Genetic Engineering is Regularly Used to Produce Lethal Bacteria. 1990. 1982. London. p. ". "Prospects of an Anti-hCG Vaccine Inducing Antibodies of High Affinity .stanford. Say Doctors". Miller. "Gene Wars Only a Few Years Away.. SPERMICIDAL CORN 281 contraceptive levels of antibodies to hCG developed in all subjects. 53. quoted in Robert Harris and Jeremy Paxman. New York. 47.html. Ibid. Biennial Report. Stanford Report.Kadlec. James. Sunshine: Biological Weapons and Genetical Engineering. 26 October 2004. Also World Health Organization. "Challenges in Reproductive Health Research". See also George Rosie. Geneva. Noonday Press.sunshine-project. and . p. http://www.TERMINATORS. A Higher Form ofKilling. Steven Block. 11 January 200 l. New York. Ibid. 52. London Times. Elsevier Science Publishers. 54. 49. chp9.html. 48. 186. quoted in Mark Shwartz.millairchronicles/ battle/chp 1O. Winston Churchill.. Biological Weapons for Waging Economic Warfare and TwentyFirst Century Germ Warfare. Helen Nugent. G. Reproductive Technology.airpower.A.maxwell. et aI. op.. 1989.edu/news/200 11 january17/bioterror-117 . "Churchill's Anthrax Bombs: UK Planned to Wipe out Germany with Anthrax': Sunday Herald. .

The President began his remarks. Health & Human Services. joined by the Secretaries of Homeland Security. there is no pandemic influenza in the United States or the world. President George W. Agriculture. the White House invited the Director-General of the World Health Organization. who flew in from Geneva. including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. But if history . The NIH press conference was no ordinary Bush photo opportunity. Veteran Affairs. Switzerland for the occasion. Bush went to the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda.CHAPTER 13 Avian Flu Panic and GMO Chickens O The President Helps out a Friend n November 1. And just to underscore that this was a big deal. "at this moment. interestingly enough.2005. The President was surrounded by almost half his cabinet. Maryland to hold an unusually high profile press conference to announce a 381-page plan officially called the Pandemic Influenza Strategic Plan. It was in many respects as unusual and significant as the President's May 2003 press conference where he declared his intent to file WTO action to break the European Union moratorium on GMO. This one was meant to be a big event. Transportation and.

And while the avian flu virus has spread from Asia to Europe.AVIAN FLU PANIC AND GMO CHICKENS is our guide.. Roche." The President went on to warn: At this point. held the sole license to manufacture Tamiflu. it followed a multiple agenda. As with the other pre-emptive wars. there are no reports of infected birds.. .. 1 Bush then called on Congress to immediately pass a new bill with $7.1 billion in emergency funding to prepare for that possible danger. With growing scare stories in US and international media warning of the deadly new H5Nl strain of Avian Flu virus and the "high" risk of human-to-human contamination." Bush spoke about an imminent danger to the American people: "Scientists and doctors cannot tell us where or when the next pandemic will strike. there is reason to be concerned.. The speech was an exercise in the Administration's "pre-emptive war:' this time against avian flu. but most agree: at some point. which also "possibly" might reduce symptoms of avian flu. that does not mean people in our country will be infected. Even if the virus does eventually appear on our shores in birds. And as of now. our country and the world have been hit by three influenza pandemics-and viruses from birds contributed to all of them .. The large Swiss pharmaceutical firm. The drug was being heavily promoted by Washington and the WHO as the only available medicine to reduce symptoms of general or seasonal influenza. unless people come into direct.. Prominent among the President's list of emergency measures was a call for Congress to appropriate another $1 billion explicitly for a drug developed in California called Tamiflu. or people in the United States. animals. And the scientific community is increasingly concerned by a new influenza virus known as H5Nl--or avian flu . or how severe it will be. order books at Roche were backed up for months. Most of the people in Southeast Asia who got sick were handling infected birds. we are likely to face another pandemic. Avian flu is still primarily an animal disease. sustained contact with infected birds. In the last century. it is unlikely they will come down with avian flu. we do not have evidence that a pandemic is imminent.

worth $18 million. Unconfirmed reports were that while Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense. 4 This phenomenon suggested a parallel with the corruption of Halliburton Corporation. oseltamivir (Tamiflu) will be used to prevent and treat illness.."3 That 2004 Pentagon directive made a significant contribution to panic buying of Tamiflu by governments around the world. Gilead Science Inc. acting as National Security Advisor (NSA) under Richard Nixon. He stood to make a fortune on royalties and on the rising stock price for Gilead. its supply is extremely limited worldwide. However. a listed US stock company which preferred to maintain a low profile in the context of growing interest in Tamiflu. had been Chairman of the Board of Gilead Science Inc. Nelson Rockefeller's protege Henry Kissinger oversaw foreign policy. Rumsfeld had been on the Gilead board since 1988 according to a January 3. There is evidence that HSNI is sensitive to oseltamivir.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION What President Bush neglected to say was that Tamiflu had been developed and patented by a California biotech firm.. and its use will be prioritized. including his NSSM 200 project. he also purchased additional stock in his former company. as a panicked world population scrambled to buy a drug whose capacity to cure the alleged avian flu was still uncertain.. Donald H. before he became US Secretary of Defense in the Bush Administration. while Rumsfeld was Defense Secretary. the top . whose former CEO was Vice President Dick Cheney. " . Cheney's Halliburton had gotten billions of dollars worth of US construction contracts in Iraq and elsewhere. That might have been because in 1997. the President's close friend. whose ultimate aim was unknown? Kissinger and Biological Warfare Back in the mid-1970's. 2 In November 2004. making him one of the largestif not the largest-Gilead stock owners. The document stated that.1997 company press release. Gilead Science. 5 Was the avian flu scare another Pentagon hoax. his Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs issued a directive regarding Avian Flu. He had remained there until early 2001 when he became Defense Secretary. Rumsfeld.

US government researchers used radiation to enhance the cancer-causing potential of the avian virus. The major US chicken factories such as Tyson Foods. Dr. the small family-run chicken farmers especially in Asia. According to the US Congressional Record of 1975. the avian flu scare was also being used to advance the global domination of agribusiness and poultry factory farms along the model of the Arkansas-based Tyson Foods Inc. Leonard Horowitz. Perdue Farms and ConAgra Poultry made a propaganda campaign. The sudden emergence of a global scare over a supposedly deadly strain of Avian Flu virus in 2003 had to be treated with more than a little suspicion. Agribusiness Gains in Avian Flu Scare Not only was Defense Secretary Rumsfeld a direct benefactor of US. UK and other governments' stockpiling of his Tamiflu. influenza and para-influenza viruses were recombined with quick-acting leukemia viruses to deliver weapons that potentially spread cancer. Britain. were those who stood to lose in the Bird Flu hysteria. with at most perhaps 10 to 20 chickens. the huge. like the flu. These researchers also amassed avian cancer (sarcoma) viruses and inoculated them into humans and monkeys to determine their carcinogenicity. During this program.AVIAN FLU PANIC AND GMO CHICKENS secret Third World population reduction strategy for the US. unsanitary and overcrowded factory chicken farms of the global agribusiness giants were not those being scrutinized as a possible incubator or source ofH5N1 or other diseases. Instead. 6 Among these new man-made biological weapons were germs far deadlier than the avian flu/ By 1968. falsely . 8 In related efforts. Kissinger selected to have the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) develop biological weapons. by sneezing. Germany. and other NATO allies. mutant recombinant flu viruses had just been engineered by US Government Special Virus Cancer Program researchers. Those incredible scientific realities were officially censored. when Kissinger requested and received updated intelligence on useful "synthetic biological agents" for germ warfare and population control. Curiously enough indeed. according to AIDS researcher.

a non-profit organization investigating conditions in US factory farms. WATT Poultry USA. and being prevented from moving or getting . the five accounted for over 370 million pounds. per week. ConAgra Poultry. unlike those of free-running Asian chicken farms. Together. must work in narrow confines with sharp tools and dangerous machinery. Gold Kist Inc. or 48 billion pounds of chicken meat.314. feed. the US poultry industry became one of the first targets for industrialization or "factory farming:'9 The industrialization of chicken-raising and slaughtering in the USA had progressed to the point that by 2003 when the first cases of H5Nl avian flu virus were reported from Asia. blood. creating the largest chicken agribusiness giant. all of them vertically integrated. fecal matter. as of 2003 the five companies held overwhelming domination of the US poultry production. 10 The five companies were Tyson Foods. noted that. loud noise. "thanks to genetic selection. 12 Another report from VivaUSA.000 pounds of that chicken meat. "Safety in the Meat and Poultry Industry. The US chicken factory farms produced almost 9 billion "broiler" or meat chickens in 2005. As an integral part of the Harvard-run agribusiness vertical integration project of Professors John Davis and Ray Goldberg.' concluded that US meat and poultry processing plants had "one of the highest rates of injury and illness of any industry. the largest in the world.000. produced 6. and Perdue Farms. their chickens were "safer" because they were raised in closed facilities.286 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION claiming that. home of Tyson Foods. exacerbated by poor ventilation and often extreme temperatures:' Workers typically faced hazardous conditions. corresponding to some 56% of all ready-to-eat poultry produced in the USA. The State of Arkansas. according to trade source. In January 2007. Pilgrim's Pride bought Gold Kist. a US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report to the US Senate. Indeed.. five giant multinational agribusiness companies dominated the production and processing of chicken meat in the United States. In January 2005." They cited exposure to "dangerous chemicals. of ready-to-cook chicken. Pilgrim's Pride. ll They produced chicken meat in atrocious health and safety conditions.

chickens were excluded from the protections of the federal Animal Welfare Act. fed. creating excess fluids in their bodies. 2005. Tyson made over $26 billion a year in revenue in 2006. Tyson Foods" earnings rose by 49%. creating breast blisters or hock burns. The federal government set no rules or standards for how chickens should be housed. or treated on farms.AVIAN FLU PANIC AND GMO CHICKENS any exercise on factory farms. they had to sit in poor-quality litter. muscle growth outstripped bone development and the chickens typically had leg and skeletal disorders that affected their ability to walk. whereas. During the peak of the bird flu scare. Chicken organs were unable to keep up with their hyper growth rates. Unable to walk. Tyson Foods processed 155 million pounds of chicken a week. or Hell." They cite a USDA study which noted that "in the 1940's broilers required 12 weeks to reach market weight (4." 13 The use of the growth boosters created major health problems in the huge factory farm concentrations. Were Asian governments forced via WHO and interna- . now they reach that weight and are killed at just six weeks of age.4 pounds). One clear target for those companies was the huge Asian poultry market.15 Tyson Foods and the small international cartel of poultry agribusiness firms stood to gain from the avian flu scare. A World GMO Chicken? Alone. the Quarter ending September 30. almost three times the production of its nearest rival. According to a growing number of animal health experts. causing hearts or lungs to fail or malfunction. factory farming. Its profit margin in chickens grew by 40%. The giant American chicken processors were out to globalize world chicken production by the turn of the Millennium. 14 Under special exemptions in US law. chickens now grow to be much larger and to grow more quickly than ever before. sent precisely for that task. or death. rather than the small free-roaming chicken operations of Asia. Because of hormone and vaccine injections used to speed growth. The avian flu seemed a gift from Heaven. due to the unnatural elements of industrialized production methods. was the real source of horrendous new diseases and viruses such as H5Nl.

hatch chicks to supply other intensive poultry operations. 17 Practically all of this new poultry production has happened on factory farms concentrated outside of major cities and integrated into transnational production systems. an organization dealing with GMO issues. Thailand. revealed that the Thai-based CP Group and other chicken factory farms "were present nearly everywhere bird flu has broken out. Beyond Factory Farming."16 The outbreaks which had been traced as far away as Turkish Anatolia. The GRAIN report noted: The transformation of poultry production in Asia in recent decades is staggering. Indonesia.440.000 metric tonnes (mt) of chicken meat in 1971 to 2. and Viet Nam-production jumped eightfold in just 30 years. China's production of chicken tripled during the 1990s to over 9 million metric tons per year. from around 300. China and Vietnam there is a highly developed industrial poultry industry which has expanded dramatically in the past decade. Cambodia or elsewhere in Asia where mass crowding and unsanitary closed conditions provided ideal breeding conditions for the outbreak of disease. Bulgaria and Croatia by early 2006 all followed the transportation routes by air or rail of processed poultry from CP Group operations in China. This is the ideal breeding ground for highly-pathogenic bird flu-like the HSNI strain threatening to explode into a human flu pandemic. A report by a Canadian organization. export live birds and eggs to countries such as Nigeria (where the first Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza outbreak in Africa was recently reported) . GRAIN. In a detailed report issued in February 2006.288 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION tional pressure to force farmers to cage chickens. The large poultry companies raise millions of birds. In the Southeast Asian countries where most of the bird flu outbreaks are concentrated-Thailand. small farmers would be bankrupted and large agribusiness firms like Tyson Foods or the Thailand-based CP Group would thrive.000 mt in 2001. described the transmission likely pathways from the giant industrialized chicken centers: In Thailand.

20 Group patriarch. brother of George W. was no mom-and-pop operation. not North-South. ] Manure that may contain live virus is spread on surrounding farmland. In Asia.. Nigeria has a large and poorly regulated factory poultry production sector which is supplied with chicks from factory farms in China. Wild birds and poultry that have fallen victim to HPAI in Asia.e. Asia's largest poultry factory farming agribusiness group. birds migrate in late fall from the Northern Hemisphere to southern. a billionaire with a penchant for cock fighting and yachts. Bush. or exported as fertilizer. [ . Neil Bush. including China. Dhanin Chearavanont. sunnier climates for winter. Officials at WHO and the US Government's Centers for Disease Control conveniently omitted that salient fact as they spread fear of free-flying birds. financed by Nelson Rockefeller. 19 CP Group of Thailand. was hardly a struggling third world businessman. Turkey and Nigeria appear to have been directly exposed to HPAI virus originating in the factory farm system. He started in 1964 when he learned the concept of vertical integration from Arbor Acres Farm of Connecticut in the United States. and his own executive Vice President Sarasin Viraphol.AVIAN FLU PANIC AND GMO CHICKENS and produce and export feed which often includes "litter" (i. 18 As experts on migratory bird flight pointed out. Bird flu outbreaks followed an East-West route. at the time the world's largest chicken factory. By 2005. and through run-off may end up in surface waters where wild birds feed and rest. former Thai Deputy .. under the name Chia Tai Group. where. it employed 80. Chearavanont was business partner with among others. it had operations in more than 20 countries. Chicken manure is even found in fish farm feed formulations where it is introduced directly into the aquatic environment.000 people. manure) in the ingredients. a flock of wild ducks died from HPAI-after having come into contact with the disease at a remote lake where a fish farm used feed pellets made from poultry litter from a factory farm.. In Turkey a massive cull of backyard flocks-and the deaths of three children-took place after a nearby factory farm sold sick and dying birds to local peasants at cut rate prices.

the London Times noted in its October 29. were moving to industrialize the majority of world chicken production.2I By early 2006. 24 Roslin had first captured world headlines with their creation of "Dolly the Sheep. a method in which flocks of specially produced transgenic chickens would lay virtually unlimited numbers of eggs expressing high volumes of the target drug in the egg whites." Within the space oflittle more than two decades. that a very active research project at Scotland's Roslin Institute. it seemed clear that the five or six giant poultry agribusiness multinationals. was on the brink of genetically engineering chickens to produce birds resistant to the lethal strains of the H5Nl virus. One little-noted research project in England gave a clue as to what the subsequent phase of the globalization of chicken production would be. especially in Asia. 22 Amid reports of spreading bird flu from Asia across to Europe. operating in collaboration with Laurence Tiley. was chosen to sit on David Rockefeller's elite Trilateral Commission." Tiley was buoyant about the prospects for transforming the world chicken population into GMO birds. 23 Roslin Institute had earlier contracted with a Florida biotech company. Viragen. He told the Times that "once we have regulatory approval. The new "transgenic chickens" would have small pieces of genetic material inserted into chicken eggs to allegedly make the chickens H5Nl resistant. 2005 edition. Once it would be produced in massive factory farm installations worldwide.290 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Secretary of Foreign Affairs. five US-based and one Thai-based and White House-connected. we believe it will only take between four and five years to breed enough chickens to replace the entire world (chicken) population. GMO science had enabled a small handful of private global agribusiness companies-three of them American-based-to secure a major foothold . the main meat protein source for much of the planet. the world chicken population would be an easy target for the creation of the first GMO animal population. for the rights to commercialize Avian Transgenic Technology. Professor of Virology at Cambridge University.

the GMO or Gene Revolution players were clearly aiming to conquer the world's most important source of meat protein. poultry. riding the fear of an Avian Flu human pandemic. By 2006. corn. soybeans and soon wheat. . Soon the next piece in the global control over man's food chain was executed. The implications were staggering. Mississippi. Terminator was about to come into the control of the world's largest GMO agribusiness seed giant.AVIAN FLU PANIC AND GMO CHICKENS 291 and patent rights to world production of such essential feed grains as rice. It played out on a quiet August day in Scott.

2.globalresearch.. Annual Report. 21 September 2004. 11.41l.html. Gilead Sciences.org/ campaigns/chickens/media. http://www. Department ofDefense Guidance for Preparation and Response to an Influenza Pandemic caused by the Bird Flu (Avian Influenza). pp. 8. D. 12. op. http://www.. http://www. Nature. http://www. cit. GAO-OS-96.C. 1 November 2005. Committee on Government Reform.. "Chickens: Cheaper by the Mission': The Reader's Digest. Tetrahedron Publishing Group. Animal Welfare Issues Compendium.html. http://www. http://www. While Improving. Could Be Further Strengthened. Inc.C. October 2006. US Department of Defense.gov/newslreleasesI200S/ 11/200S1101-l. 41O-41l. US House of Representatives. 9 December 2004. February 1968. Idaho.. 10.pdf. 14. Donald H. A Collection of 14 Discussion Papers. Washington.gov/awic/pubs/97issues. Accident or Intentional?". 30 October 2005. 5. January 2005. 3. Sandpoint.vivausa. Ira Wolfert. Press Release.C. William Winkenwerder Jr. Viva! USA.com/Corporate/. php?context=viewArticle&code=%20EN200Sl 030&articieId=1169. Washington D. Leonard G.calindex. WATT Poultry USA. Tyson Foods. Fact Sheet. 9. USDA. Accessed on 30 September 2005. WATT Poultry USA's Rankings. 13. George W. http://www. Bush.htm.thp.120904A-l.tyson. Washington..usda. D. CA. http://warp. "Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola.200S. 3 January 1997. United States Government Accountability Office. Ibid.org/ mm_0l/S.com/wt/sec/ pr_9331901S7/.osd. Rep.truthout. 6. Halliburton's Iraq Contracts Now Worth over $10 Billion.mil/GEIS/SurveillanceActivities/ InfluenzaIDoD_Flu_Plan_04092l. Viva! USA.pdf. 275288.geis. September 1997. "Is Avian Flu another Pentagon Hoax?': Global Research. Henry A Waxman.gilead. Chicken/Broiler Industry Media Briefing. 7. Safety in the Meat and Poultry Industry. pp. F.p.nal. Rumsfeld Named Chairman of Gilead Sciences.292 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Notes 1. NIH. 2006. Ibid. William Engdahl. 15. Horowitz. 4. Foster City.whitehouse. . 2001.. President Outlines Pandemic Influenza Preparations and Response.

21. 23. Fowl Play: The Poultry Industry's Central Role in the Bird Flu Crisis.cn.roslin. Fact Sheet: Avian Flu.viragen. World Health Organization. and Time Asia magazine. Walter Sontag. Mark Henderson. Research Reviews. 19. Roslin Institute. See also. The 2005 Trilateral Commission Membership List. http://www. 17. 5 November 2005. Geneva. Practical Environmental Enrichment to Improve Poultry Welfare.orglgo/birdflu. pp. Bird Droppings Prime Origin ofBird Flu.beyondfactoryfarming. 29 October 2005. Cited in GRAIN. May 2005. February 2006. 55-60. http://www. Ibid.htm. "Der Fluch der Vogel". cit. 20. http://www. "Scientists Aim to Beat Flu with Genetically Modified Chickens". http:// ·WWW. 24. New York.com/aviantransgenicbio. Viragen. Details of CP Group can be found on the company's website.ac.orgldocuments/Avian_Flu_FacCSheet.time.cpgroup.uklresearch/ hostResponse. http://www. GRAIN. The Times. 17 January 2004. 18.pdf. "The Families that Own Asia". http://www.php. Wiener Zeitung. Beyond Factory Farming Coalition.com/time/asia/ covers/SO 1040223/ chearavanont. Trilateral Commission.grain.AVIAN FLU PANIC AND GMO CHICKENS 293 16. . op.html. 22.

The NGOs which had drawn attention to the Terminator issue in 1999 were hardly to be heard beyond a brief perfunctory press release or two.2006."2 . The Major US and international media ran the story under headlines similar to that in the New York Times: "Monsanto Buys Delta and Pine Land. this time the takeover went almost unnoticed. On August 15.5 billion in cash.CHAPTER 14 Genetic Armageddon: Terminator and Patents on Pigs O Monsanto Finally Takes Delta & Pine Land n a Summer day in August 2006. The disclosed purchase price was $1. Mississippi. the Goliath of GMO agribusiness. The timing of the second takeover bid by Monsanto coincided with statements by Delta & Pine Land as to when they would be ready to commercialize Terminator. 1 Unlike when it had tried the same ploy in 1999 and was forced to back down by a storm of public protest. Top Supplier of Cotton Seeds in US. a corporate acquisition took place which was to set the stage for the final phase of the Rockefeller Foundation's decades-long dream of controlling the human species. Monsanto Corporation. as much of the world was lost in vacation distractions. announced that it had made a new bid to take ownership of Delta & Pine Land of Scott.

The general yawn of reaction to the second Terminator takeover bid by Monsanto tended to confirm the fears of skeptics who warned in 1999 that Monsanto's Terminator dreams had anything but "terminated:' They were only dormant until public opposition had weakened. The Rockefeller Foundation still opposes the use of Terminator technology in developing (sic) countries. lobbied for Justice Department involvement to block the D&PL takeover by rival Monsanto. a jump of more than 50% in days. He personally argued with the board of Monsanto that Delta & Pine Land's Terminator patents."4 They declined to oppose Terminator universally.. the agriculture industry and ultimately consumers. Foundation Press Spokesman Peter Costiglio. "we have serious concerns about the impact that it would have on farmers. Wall Street stock traders greeted the takeover with jubilation and the price of stock of D&PL went ~allistic from $27 a share in early August to over $40. Gordon Conway.3 This time around. Monsanto crop-biotech competitors DuPont and Swiss-based Syngenta.. a passionate advocate of what he even dubbed the Gene Revolution. risked a public revolution against spread of GMO. through the . a process aided and abetted by the US Government." Their "concern" appeared to be more directed at the staggering implications of Monsanto now controlling world rights for Terminator. made a concerted intervention.. In 1999." The once-vocal public voice of the Rockefeller Foundation was this time silent. despite the fact that farmer-saved seeds are a major factor throughout the industrialized world as well. Foundation President. in reply to a public question tersely replied: "We don't have a statement to share with you . the influential Rockefeller Foundation did not even bother to issue a press release opposing the planned second try to capture Terminator rights by Monsanto. in the hands of a giant GMO company like Monsanto.GENETIC ARMAGEDDON: TERMINATOR AND PATENTS ON PIGS 295 Only far down in the last sentence of the article did the Times even note that Delta & Pine Land held "a controversial genetic engineering technology that makes sterile seeds. DuPont said in a statement. both in a bitter battle to gain market share from Monsanto.

For almost a quarter century. s EU Patent Office Approves Terminator In the intervening seven years since the first attempt by Monsanto to acquire Delta & Pine Land and its global Terminator patent rights. soybeans or wheat. some of the world's most abundant food-producing regions. the US Government had quietly been working to perfect a genetically engineered technique whereby farmers would be forced to turn to their seed supplier each harvest to get new seeds. Patent no. The patent would cover all 25 nations in the European Union from Germany to Poland and Italy to France. It had aggressively and successfully extended its patent rights on GURTs. At the Fourth Meeting of the Working Group of the international Convention on Biological Diversity of the United Nations Environment Program in Granada in January 2006. DuPont and Dow AgroSciences to go from supplying agriculture chemical herbicides like Roundup. a group of indigenous farmers from Peru filed a submission on their concerns over possible introduction of Terminator seed technology: As traditional indigenous farmers we are united to defend our livelihoods which are dependant on seeds obtained from the harvest as .SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION cooperation of the US Department of Agriculture in Delta & Pine Land's Terminator research. Several days later D&PL and the US Government also secured patent protection for its Terminator technology in Canada under CA 2196410. to patenting genetically altered seeds for basic farm crops like corn. rice. EP775212B. The advance of Terminator technology to global commercialization had hardly ceased despite the de facto worldwide UN ban imposed years before. D&PL had not been idle. since 1983. In October 2005 Delta & Pine Land together with the US Department of Agriculture won a major new patent on its Terminator technology from the European Union's European Patent Office. 6 The advent of GMO patented seeds on a commercial scale in the early 1990's had allowed companies like Monsanto.

As a center of origin for potatoes. and increasingly depend on the purchase of Terminator varieties for harvest security so that they can guarantee at least one germination period. Peru is home to over 2. as Terminator seeds would not be lOO% sterile in the second generation. the traditional knowledge and innovation systems customarily administered by indigenous women who have made such biodiversity and livelihood strategies possible and indigenous cultural and spiritual values that honor fertility and continuity of life. Indigenous farmers who save the seeds of contaminated varieties for replanting may find that a percentage of their seeds do not germinate. The spread of Terminator to indigenous agricultural systems in Peru could force indigenous farmers to abandon their traditional role as stewards of biodiversity and in doing so threaten current and future global food security.039. turn their backs on traditional varieties.GENETIC ARMAGEDDON: TERMINATOR AND PATENTS ON PIGS 297 a principal source of seed to be used in subsequent agricultural cycles. potentially translating into significant yield losses. March. and. the introduction of foreign genes into uncultivated varieties through gene flow from Terminator could irreversibly alter the wild varieties on which indigenous peoples have traditionally depended for important medicines and food.000 varieties of potatoes and is considered one of twelve megadiverse countries where 70% of the world's biodiversity resides. This tradition of seed conservation underpins Andean and Amazonian biodiversity and livelihood strategies. Their petition to ban Terminator internationally argued several points cogently. the introduction of GURTs to Peru presents a high risk for irreparable contamination of this center of origin of potato? . is put at risk for contamination through gene flow from Terminator crops.700. Similarly. Such contamination could cause farmers to lose trust in their own seed stock. both domesticated and wild. They argued: Andean and Amazonian biodiversity. US Patent 6. Perhaps the most important was that on the danger to the biological diversity of hundreds of varieties of plants and crops. Biodiversity forms the basis of global food security and sovereignty for peoples and communities around the world. Considering that Terminator patents on potatoes have recently been claimed (Syrgenta. this risk is great. 2004).

Lares and Wakawasi in the district of Lares. In August 2005. Choquecancha. Japan and anywhere Monsanto and its elite cartel of GMO agribusiness partners entered a market.1O Selling Seeds of Destruction Everywhere The Terminator deal closed the circle for Monsanto to emerge as the overwhelming monopolist of agricultural seeds of nearly every . more popularly referred to as Terminator seeds. however.the very processes of adaptive interaction between man and the climatically complex Andean and Amawnian ecosystems which has allowed for the evolution and current vitality of a highly specialized body of indigenous knowledge would be paralyzed. if any. It also may have unleashed a Terminator pollution plague on the world. GURTs. were also a threat to the food security of North America. 9 What few were aware of. The event showed that even seemingly secure physical containment was vulnerable. Delta & Pine Land was testing Terminator seeds in greenhouses. Terminator technology would have a concrete impact on these knowledge systems by jeopardizing the availability of fertile seeds for collective exchange and breeding. might be posed.SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION The Peruvian farmers also stressed that Terminator threatened traditional exchange of knowledge and invaluable experience among farmers: Traditional knowledge and innovation systems of Andean and Amawnian indigenous peoples are built around seed saving and seed exchange between plant breeders. Western Europe. That would take years to determine. As a consequence of Terminator. particularly as evidenced by the extensive crop and seed exchanges at the popular weekly barter markets in the communities of Qachin. s In fact. two of Delta & Pine Land's greenhouses were destroyed and eleven others were damaged by a tornado. The company declined to inform the public whether there were Terminator tests in the houses that were destroyed or what bio-safety risks. was that the proliferation of deadly Terminator seeds might have already inadvertently been released as a result of a natural disaster.

cucumbers. Monsanto had paid more than $1. Monsanto was moving itself into position to hold absolute control oyer the majority of the planet's agricultural seeds for plants. Of course. were also widely used by conventional and organic farmers. 13 . primarily sold to large supermarket chains.GENETIC ARMAGEDDON: TERMINATOR AND PATENTS ON PIGS 299 variety. They supplied the genetics for 55% of all lettuce on US supermarket shelves. They were also moving into a highly controversial genetic engineering and patenting of animal seeds. "if you've had a salad. Seminis. and peas. DuPont (Pioneer Seed). second in agronomic crops. 12 The purchase pushed Monsanto past rival. the genes had come from sem~n provided by genetically-altered Monsantopatented boars or male swine. Patents on the Semen of Pigs and Bulls? In August 2005 researchers in Germany uncovered a European patent application by Monsanto Corporation which set off new alarm bells over the scope of the attempt by private agribusiness giants to control."ll At the time Monsanto took it over. Monsanto had filed application for patent rights internationally with the World Intellectual Property Organization on what it claimed was its development through genetic engineering of a means to identify specific genes in pigs. and the world's third largest agrochemical company. A year before the Delta & Pine Land bid. Seminis boasted at the time. first in vegetables and fruits. the company controlled over 40% of all US vegetable seeds sold and 20% of the world market. patent and license the entire food supply of the planet. active in the patenting of GMO seeds for fruit and vegetable varieties. That was not sufficient however. With the final acquisition of Delta & Pine Land in 2007. broccoli. with large shares of spinach. Seminis. to create the world's largest seed company.4 billion for a loss-making California GMO seed giant. Their seeds. was the world leader in marketing vegetable and fruit plant seeds. 75% of all tomatoes and 85% of all peppers. you've had a Seminis product.

"We've come up with a protocol that wraps a lot of these techniques together:' said Monsanto swine molecular breeding expert Mike Lohuis. In addition to seeking to patent pig breeding methods.. particularly so-called retroviruses. The technique allowed for more selective modification techniques with some control over the integration site. ES cells had only been isolated from some strains of mice. despite many attempts to obtain ES cells from rats and farm animals. IS If accepted. Retroviruses are a type of virus which replicates by integrating itself into the host DNA and is then copied with the host genetic material as the cell divides..300 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Monsanto spokesperson.. :' a "pig herd having an increased frequency of a specific . gene . "We're talking about the process itself. the right to collect license fees for "pig offspring produced by a method .. :' a "pig population produced by the method .. "Any pigs that would be produced using this reproductive technique would be covered by these patents:' Horner admitted in a Reuters interview. Chris Horner. as "vectors" to introduce new genetic material into cells because they are naturally well equipped to infiltrate them. The practices Monsanto wanted to patent involved identifying genes that result in desirable traits in swine. breeding animals to achieve those traits and using a specialized device to inseminate sows deeply in a way that uses less sperm than is typically required. . For example.. :' and a "swine herd produced by a method .. A second method involves use of embryonic stem cells.. One method used viruses. apparently a kind of eugenics for pigs. " respectively. Monsanto sought patent rights and hence.. To date however. Horner stated.. claimed that the company merely wanted protection for its selective breeding processes. 16 There were several techniques being used to genetically engineer animals. these patents would grant Monsanto intellectual property rights to particular farm animals and particular herds of livestock." 14 The actual wording of the patent application refuted Horner's claims. including the means to identify specific genes in pigs and use of a specialized insemination device.

It had obvious attractions as artificial insemination of livestock and poultry was routine. the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision. US 2007/0026493 AI. turkey and broiler production and processing. It was followed by a landmark patent on the so-called "Harvard mouse" which was engineered to be susceptible to cancer.GENETIC ARMAGEDDON: TERMINATOR AND PATENTS ON PIGS 301 modification can be targeted so that a transgene replaced the equivalent native gene or so that genes were "knocked out"-made ineffective by removal or disruption. The case concerned the patenting of genetically engineered bacteria that eat oil sludge. The application was titled. in principle. of nonhuman multi-cellular organisms that were not naturally occurring. its financing of the project for sequencing of genomes and the development of cloning. In July 2006. The door had first been opened wide to recognition of such patents by the US Supreme Court. In 1987. In 1980. IS Monsanto was not alone in attempting to control entire animal genetic seed lines. Cargill Corporation of Minnesota. had led biotech giants such as Monsanto or Cargill to spend huge sums of money to genetically modify animals.!? 1980 US Supreme Court Ruling The Rockefeller Foundation's decades long nurturing of the field of molecular biology. This constituted a radical and highly controversial arena for the battle for patenting life. no. and one of the dominating firms in beef. These were the kinds of techniques being patented as fast as the GMO industry lawyers could file patent applications. applied for a patent. Diamond v." Genetically modified sperm was used as a vector for introducing foreign DNA into the egg. with the US Patent and Trademark Office. "Systems and Methods for Optimizing Animal Production using Genotype Information. the US Patent and Trademark Office issued a pronouncement of the patentability. the world's largest agriculture trading company. pork. The companies were focussed on one goal: patents and license rights to the results.' and the application stated its purpose was to "optimize animal production based on the animal genotype . declared that "anything under the sun that is made by man" is patentable. Chakrabarty. A third technique was called "sperm mediated transfer.

" This naIve popular belief in the idea of scientific progress as axiom had been one of the essential tools in the process of taking control of world food as the end of the first decade of the new century neared. and a well-supported campaign of lies and distortions. control over food. if you control food. oilseeds and other crops."19 Cargill had been engaged in a joint venture with Monsanto. Syngenta. Few realized that pursuit of Kissinger's second goal. you control people:' The relentless pursuit of global control over oil had been the hallmark of the Bush-Cheney Administration. the four major GMO agribusiness giants-Monsanto. is always "progress. system. was also well advanced and at a dangerous point for the future of the global population. Perhaps the most effective tool in the effort of the powerful and arrogant elites behind the spread of GMO agribusiness was their calculated cultivation of the dangerous myth that "science:' in the abstract. near Chicago.20 With stealth. DuPont and Dow-were moving towards the goal once dreamed of by Henry Kissinger as ultimate control: If you control the oil.302 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION information. . you can control nations. to use advanced breeding techniques and transgenics for patented sorts of feedgrains. Renessen Feed & Processing.

com/editorials/engdahl/2006/0828.5 Billion in Cash. Andrew Pollack. 8. F. 30 August 2005. http://www. 23-27 January 2006. 28 August 2006. Delta Democrat Times. "D&PL Storm Losses Top $1 Million". ii. 4.html. 10 August 2005.mediaroom. Ibid.org.GENETIC ARMAGEDDON: TERMINATOR AND "PATENTS ON PIGS 303 Notes 1. 12 February 2007. Submissions from Indigenous and local communities. "Monsanto Buys Delta and Pine Land. Potential Socio-economic Impacts of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (Gurts) on Indigenous and Local Communities. endnote 12. Jeff Shaw. and " 9 February 2007. The Convention on Biological Diversity. 24 January 2005.ch/cm_data/NOM -DELTAPINE.genewatch. William Engdahl. Financial Sense Online. Fourth meeting. 13. The Seed Alliance. http://www. "Monsanto Looks to Patent Pigs Breeding Methods': New Standard.php?s=43&item =211. 5. 17.. "Monsanto Buys 'Terminator' Seeds Company".net. 2. in http:// monsanto.financialsense. http://www. Carey Gillam. endnote 9 for details.org. Gene Watch UK. Top Supplier of Cotton Seeds in US".com/index.seedalliance. Ibid. 9. 3. Monsanto Company to Acquire Delta and Pine Land Company for $1.org/ index. Ban Terminator Campaign. 14. Ibid. cit. Peter Costiglio. "And We Have the Seeds: Monsanto Purchases World's Largest Vegetable Seed Company". 12. 6. 11. 7. op.php?page=SeminisMonsanto. http://www.biodiv. Techniques for the Genetic Modification of Animals. untitled email reply to author. The New York Times. 16.evb. "The Public Eye Awards 2006: Delta & Pine Land". http://newstandardnews. Matthew Dillon. 15 August 2006. http://www. See Chapter 12. Indigenous Peoples of Cusco. 16 August 2006. 18 August 2005. Press Release. Granada. Carey Gillam. Monsanto Corporation. United Nations Development Program. 15. 10.pdf. Woodrow Wilkins Jr. "Crop King Monsanto Seeks Pig-Breeding Patent Clout': Reuters. . Cited in Lucy Sharatt. Peru. See Chapter 12.

poultryscience. http://www. Ames. Iowa State University.htm. 2003. Pub. US 200710026493 AI . Rothschild. . 19.C. Washington. Patenting of Genetic Innovations in Animal Breeding and Genetics.orglpba! 1952-2003/2003/20030/020Rothschild. US Patent Application Publication.. 1 February 2007. D.cargill. http://www.304 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION 18. Iowa.pdf.com/about/organization/ renessen. Cargill Corporation website. Systems and Methods for Optimizing Animal Production using Genotype Information. Max F. 20. US Patent and Trademark Office. Center for Integrated Animal Genomics. No.

that was true. The WTO judges noted that as the European Commission had in the meantime changed its procedures to approve a number of different GMO varieties for commercial use that a moratorium or official prohibition no longer existed. contradicting Brussels's claim . the WTO published part of its ruling on the case brought to court in May 2003 by US President George W. ruled preliminarily that the EU had applied a "de facto" moratorium on approvals of GMO products between June 1999 and August 2003. Unfortunately. together with Canada and Argentina-three of the world's most GMO-contaminated nations.AFTERWORD I n September 2006. alleging a de facto European Union moratorium on GMO. The WTO case had been filed by the Government of the United States.! A Preliminary Ruling in the case had been issued by a special three-man tribunal of the World Trade Organization. a Swiss Agriculture Ministry bureaucrat. chaired by Christian Haberli. A WTO three-judge panel. Bush. The WTO decision threatened to open the world's most important region for agricultural production-the European Union-to the forced introduction of genetically-manipulated plants and food products.

German-born Pope Benedict XVI made a clear and bold declaration. 3 The EU Commission itself. The WTO judges argued the EU was "guilty" of not following EU rules. when asked. 2006." Addressing the recent scientific developments in the field of genetic engineering. call on the EU to bring its practices "into conformity with its obligations under the (WTO's) SPS Agreement. The WTO tribunal recommended that the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB).306 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION that no such moratorium existed. often by margins of 60% or more. from Greece which had a law strictly banning GMO. at his Good Friday meditations. The Pontiff condemned genetic scientists "who play at being God. the Pope sternly warned against their attempts . was split over GMO. causing "undue delay" in following WTO obligations. Farmers across the EU were organizing spontaneous "GMO-free" zones and putting pressure on their politicians not to bow to WTO demands. A Danish Agriculture Commissioner was strongly pro-GMO. expressed a strong negative view on GMO. according to the leaked document. The EU Environment Minister. 4 Geneticists Who "Play at Being God" On April 14." That was the notorious Sanitary and Phytosanitary escape clause of the agribusiness industry allowing it to use WTO trade supremacy to trample national rights to care for the health and safety of their citizens. was strongly anti-GMO. Failure to comply with WTO demands could result in hundreds of millions of dollars in annual fines to the European Union. that formal EU government approval to plant specific GMO plants had also been unduly delayed in the cases of 24 out of 27 specific GMO products presented to the European Commission in Brussels. Opinion surveys showed repeatedly than European citizens. 2 The secretive WTO tribunal also ruled. the world trade policeman. largely unaccountable bureaucracy in Brussels which controls the daily lives of some 470 million EU citizens in 25 member countries. the highest authority of the Roman Catholic Church. the powerful.

5 At the point of writing this book. the significance of the Papal comments was buried by the major international media. Horst Seehofer.AFTERWORD 307 to "modify the very grammar of life as planned and willed by God:' He attacked the geneticists' "insane. her Cabinet met to discuss reversing the Government's cautious GMO policies and promoting GMO as the "technology of the future:' The Conservative Agriculture Minister. With the exception of a few short media quotes. In February 2007. . It reinforced earlier efforts by elements of that same Church over a period of decades to resist the growing onslaughts on human reproduction financed and promoted by the circles in and around the Rockefeller Foundation (from John D. to the secret human vaccination with specially-treated Tetanus injections). Croatia. to Henry Kissinger's NSSM 200. France and across the EU. Bush's Washington. Hungary. opposite to the liability law regarding GMO in the USA and Canada. Similar resistance was growing in Poland. was intent on warming chilled relations with George W. which he said were in danger of destroying humanity. advocated a decisive weakening of the previous government's Law on Gene Plants. Austria." With a blistering condemnation of modern social "satanic" mores. risky and dangerous ventures which attempt to take God's place without being God. Benedict XVI then spoke of a modern "anti-Genesis:' a "diabolical pride aimed at eliminating the family. whether plant or animal. That provision." It was the strongest and most explicit condemnation yet by the Church of the practice of genetic engineering of life forms. The government of Gerhard Schroeder had approved a law stating the provision that a farmer or concern which planted GMO seeds was liable for damages to the GMO-free areas were the GMO seeds to contaminate a neighboring land. 6 Yet groups of German farmers in the thousands were rapidly organizing opposition. Angela Merkel. the UK. A new conservative Chancellor in Germany. had acted as a major barrier preventing the widespread proliferation of GMO in Germany and most of the European Union. Ill's Population Council. it was not clear whether or not the GMO juggernaut would be stopped globally.

who courageously risked everything to tell the world of the risks associated with the GMO project. promulgated under the name of "solving the world hunger problem.308 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION What few realized was how very vulnerable the entire GMO mafia was to criticism. The fact that the grandiose claims for GMO in terms of higher yields and lower herbicide use were false to ·boot. or scientists like Arpad Puzstai in Scotland. healthloving citizens would decide the issues at stake were too important to leave to such people. F.New forms of media and private communication outside the mainstream were emerging into cyberspace to communicate the experiences of farmers like Glockner in Germany. Schmeiser in Canada. you control the people . Washington's Bush Administration seemed well on the way to securing global control of both oil and food. you control a land. the potential for exercising arbitrary political and human power in the manner in which the US and UK governments had encouraged the patenting and spread of genetically engineered plants.. Population reduction and genetically engineered crops were part of the same broad strategy: drastic targeted reduction of the world's population-genocide-the systematic elimination of entire population groups was the result of a wilful policy. William Engdahl July 2007 . Alone.. was grounds for organizing a global ban or moratorium on GMO plants and a permanent prohibition of any patent on living plants or animals. What was not yet clear was whether hundreds of millions of normal." By 2006. control the food." Recalling the earlier words of Henry Kissinger is telling: "Control the oil. added to the growing opposition to GMO..

Various EC Member State Safeguard Measures Prohibiting the Import and/or Marketing of Specific Biotech Products (hereafter the "Member State Safeguard Measures"). "WTO. 343. GMO and Total Spectrum Dominance: WTO Rules Put Free-Trade of Agribusiness Above National Health Concerns". 3. http://www. Brussels.orgl english/tratop_e/dispu_e/291r_4_e. 29 March 2006. Drittes Gesetz zur Anderung des Gentechnikgesetzes. William Engdahl.wto. 4.htm. 14 April 2006. 23 February 2007. Friends of the Earth of Europe. Global Research.orglGMOs/WhaCEuropeans. http://www. "Pope Condemns Geneticists 'Who Play at Being God". The Times. Ruth Gledhill. World Trade Organization. http://www. General Overview ofActive WTO Dispute Settlement Cases Involving the EC as Complainant or Defendamt and ofActive Cases Under the Trade Barriers Regulation. BUND.foeeurope. 6.bund.net. European Commission. Directorate-General for Trade. F. WTIDS291-3/R. . p.ca.pdf. http://www.globalresearch. 5. 2. Deutschnald. What Europeans Think about GMOs.AFTERWORD 309 Notes 1.


GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ADM Archer Daniels Midland AoA Agreement on Agriculture ARDI United States Agricultural Reconstruction and Development Program for Iraq ARS Agricultural Research Service (United States) BBSRC Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council BTWC Biological and Toxic Weapons Protocol CAF'Os Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations CAP Common Agriculture Program (European Community) CBD Convention on Biological Diversity (United Nations) CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricutural Research CIAA Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Intelligence Affairs CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center CPA Coalition Provisional Authority CF'R Council on Foreign Relations CWT Consumers for World Trade DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid EPA Environmental Protection Agency (United States) .

Fungicide and Rodenticide Act F'TC Federal Trade Commission GAO Government Accountability Office GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade GMO Genetically Modified Organism GURTs Genetic Use Restriction Technologies hCG Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin HYV High Yield Varieties IADP Intensive Agricultural Development Program IBEC International Basic Economy Corporation IGF'-1 Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 IMF' International Monetary Fund IPPF' International Planned Parenthood Federation IPR Intellectual Property Right IPRB International Program on Rice Biotechnology IRRI International Rice Research Institute ISAAA International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications KARl Kenya Agricultural Research Institute KWG Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology LDCs Least Developing Countries MAC Mexican Agricultural Program NEP New Economic Plan NIH National Institutes of Health (United States) NSSM 200 National Security Study Memorandum 200 OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development OPEC Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries OSS Office of Strategic Services P&SP Packers and Stockyards Programs PHI Pioneer Hi-Bred International PVP Plant Variety Protection Provision rBGH Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone RNA Ribonucleic Acid .312 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION ERP People's Revolutionary Army F'AO Food and Agriculture Organization (United Nations) F'DA Food and Drug Administration (United States) F'I F'RA Federal Insecticide.

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS 313 SPS Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement TRIPS Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights USAF United States Air Force USAID United States Agency for International Development USDA United States Department of Agriculture WHO World Health Organization WTO World Trade Organization WWWC World Wide Wheat Company .

GLOSSARY OF TERMS Agent Orange Herbicide and defoliant used by the US military in its Herbicidal Warfare program during the Vietnam War (1959-1975). Name derived from the orange 55-gallon drums it was shipped in. Dow Chemical and DuPont Chemical companies. Bacteria Microscopic single-celled infectious organisms. .4. While some types may be harmless. Hodgkin's disease and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Agent orange was used from 1961 to 1971. certain bacteria can cause diseases such as mycobacterium tuberculosis. is produced as a byproduct of the manufacture of 2. it was produced for the Pentagon by Monsanto.7.5-T. and is present in any of the herbicides that used it. one of the two components of Agent Orange.4.5-T has since been banned for use in the US and many other countries. among others. 2. 2. The US National Toxicology Program classified TCDD to be a human carcinogen. frequently associated with soft-tissue sarcoma.3. A dioxin.8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin (TCDD).

Niagara Falls and Times Beach. eggs) or somatic (body tissues). The residents of Love Canal. "genetic manipulation. commonly used as a euphemism for the controversial term. et aI. This critically impacts soil health and affects all other trophic levels of the ecosystem. molding. A cell contains a nucleus and is formed from a mass of living material surrounded by a membrane. The most toxic compound'is 2. It is the most toxic man-made organic chemical. Cross pollination with non-GMO varieties creates Bt-weeds." Cell Smallest structural unit of all living organisms that is able to grow and reproduce independently. (see Losey. Dioxin General term that describes a group of chemicals that are highly persistent in the environment. J.214). ranging from harm of non-target organisms to the evolution of resistance in insect pests. (1999) Nature 399.7. Cells can be classified as germ-line (sperm. The adverse environmental impacts of Bt crops are now well documented in scientific literature.3. and is second only to radioactive waste in overall toxicity. Active Bt toxins are not biodegradable.. Biotechnology Industrial use of biological processes. will spread out of control. This makes it necessary to plant a high proportion of non-Bt crops for "resistance management:' Aberrant gene expression in crops results in low-dose varieties of Bt which are ineffective in pest control and foster resistance. Biodiversity Diversity of living organisms in a particular place. and leak from plant roots into the soil where it accumulates over time. different forms of which are incorporated into genetically modified (GMO) crops. Class of super-toxic chemicals formed as a by-product of manufacturing. like all other GM genes. .GLOSSARY OF TERMS 31 5 Bacillus thurlngiensls (Bt) Soil bacterium that provides the genes for making insect-killing toxins. or burning of organic chemicals and plastics that contain chlorine. and Bt-plants become volunteers (crops that can grow for seasons without any cultivation). A report that GM genes had transferred from GM pollen into microbes in the gut of bee larvae underscores the fact that Bt toxin genes.8-tetrachlorodibenzo-pdioxin or TCDD.

In his book. the US National Toxicology Program raised 2. Eugenicists work with genetic engineering to conduct genetic screening. or genocide. autism. "genetics" to advance the same agenda. After 1945 American eugenicists decided to use a less emotionally charged word. Hereditary Genius. endometriosis.316 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Missouri were forced to abandon their homes due to dioxin contamination. and renamed their technique. reduced immunity. Dioxin became infamous during the backlash against Agent Orange during and after the Vietnam War. He concluded that it was possible to produce "a highly gifted race of men" by the process of selective breeding. In January 2001. double-helix molecule that contains all the genetic information in a cell. a large. Dioxin is a known threat near factories that produce PVC plastic or chlorinated pesticides and herbicides and where those pesticides and herbicides have been heavily used. mass murder. which . Eugenics Deliberate manipulation of the genetic makeup of human populations. in vitro fertilization." DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid. liver disease. and other nerve and blood disorders have been reportedly linked to dioxin exposure. germ line genetic modification. Discouraging the reproduction of "undesirables" was subsequently termed negative eugenics. Eugenics was more recently associated with Nazi Germany and Hitler's Master Race purification program. traditionally by selective birth control.8-TCDD cautionary level from "Reasonably Anticipated to be a Human Carcinogen" to "Known to be a Human Carcinogen. pre-implantation screening. spina bifida. RNA). Expression (Gene expression) Process through which DNA is transcribed into a message (ribonucleic acid. Glaton argued that a study of accomplished men showed they were more likely to produce intelligent and talented offspring.3. which he later termed positive eugenics. Modern eugenic ideas can be traced to the British Sir Francis Galton. an amateur scientist and cousin of Charles Darwin who coined the term in 1883. infanticide.7. etc. Health effects such as cancer.

often referred to as "transgenic. Any organism changed by genetic engineering. Genetic map Body of information on the relative locations of genes on chromosomes. Much of the effort of the Human Genome Project is focused on mapping chromosomes. and transferring genes from one species to another. relationships to biochemical activity. a segment of DNA which provides the genetic information necessary to make one protein or polypeptide. such as proteins and nucleic acids. The technology is also referred to as genetic engineering. including their structures. Genome The totality of genes in an organism. Gene Biological unit of inheritance. It includes isolating." Growth hormone Protein produced by the pituitary gland that promotes growth of the whole body.GLOSSARY OF TERMS 317 becomes translated into a physical polypeptide or protein that gives structural and functional features to a cell. choices and events are the inevitable consequence of antecedent sufficient causes. Molecular biology Study of cellular subsystems. repositories substances of genetic information and communication agencies. Genetic modification Technique where individual genes can be copied and transferred to another living organism to alter its genetic make up and thus incorporate or delete specific characteristics into or from the organism. genetic manipulation or gene technology. recombining genes or DNA from different species. GMO Genetically Modified Organism. Herbicide Chemical compound used to kill weeds. Gene A biological unit of inheritance. Genetic determinism Doctrine that all acts. copying and multiplying genes. genetic makeup. Genetic engineering Manipulation of genetic material in the laboratory. The field was initially financed and developed in the 1930's largely under financial . Hybrid Result of a cross between parents of different genetic types or different species. or the sum of one's genes. a segment of DNA that provides the genetic information necessary to make one protein.

Most critically. The rBGH milk differs from natural milk chemically. Recombinant DNA (rONA) technology The procedure for "cutting" and "splicing" DNA to make new combinations of genes. It is contaminated with pus and antibiotics resulting from mastitis induced by the biotech hormone. rBHG. genetically engi- neered version of BGH that is injected into a cow to artificially increase milk production. BGH is a protein hormone that occurs naturally in the pituitary glands of cattle.g. Patent Intellectual property protection which gives the owner exclusive right to exploit an invention for a fixed period of time (e. colon. and childhood cancers. Drinking rBGH milk would thus be expected to increase blood IGF-l levels and to increase risks of developing prostate cancer and promoting its invasiveness. Tests performed by Monsanto showed that by feeding IGF1 at the lowest dose levels for only two weeks significant growth stimulating effects were induced in organs of adult rats. IGF-l. nutritionally. Because . multiple lines of evidence have also incriminated the role of IGF-l as risk factors for breast. To increase milk production. a factor controlling the amount of milk produced by a dairy cow. High IGF-l blood levels are the strongest known risk factor for prostate cancer. who at the same time were actively funding Nazi Eugenics. IGF-l resists pasteurization and digestion by stomach enzymes and is well absorbed across the intestinal wall. under the brand name POSILAC®. in 1995 the US Food and Drug Administration approved the sale of unlabeled milk from cows injected with Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone. Apart from prostate cancer. up to 10 times the levels in natural milk and over 10 times more potent. Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH or rBST (recombinant bovine somatotropin) A synthetic.318 S EEDS OF DESTRUCTION support from the Rockefeller Foundation. pharmacologically and immunologically. 17-20 years) in exchange for full disclosure of how the invention is made. rBGH milk has high levels of abnormally potent Insulin-like Growth Factor.

Even though scientists agree that it is impossible to predict all forms of damage posed by insects or pest plants. The SPS agreement gives the WTO the power to override a country's use of the precautionary principle-a principle that allows them to act on the side of caution if there is no scientific certainty about potential threats to human health and the environment.GLOSSARY OF TERMS 319 of significant risks demonstrat~d. the World Trade Organization (WTO) sets constraints on member-states' policies relating to food safety (bacterial contaminants. and so on. negotiated during the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. pesticides. The foundations of Molecular Biology are reductionist. It is . and entered into force with the establishment of the WTO at the beginning of 1995. Under the SPS agreement. The degree of difference between a natural food and its genetically modified alternative before its "substance" ceases to be "equivalent" is not defined by legislators nor anyone else. national quarantine barriers can be defined by the WTO as a "technical trade barrier" used to keep out foreign competitors. Reductionism The doctrine that complex systems can be completely understood in terms of its simplest parts. inspection and labeling) as well as animal and plant health (phytosanitary). Substantial equivalence A non-scientific term to describe new. rice. a society in terms of its individuals. an organism can be completely understood in terms of its genes. SPS Agreement (Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures) An international treaty of the World Trade Organization. The concept of substantial equivalence has never been properly clarified. the burden of proof is on nation-states to scientifically demonstrate that something is dangerous before it can be regulated. cotton. genetically engineered crops produced by biotechnology that outwardly resemble natural corn. under SPS rules. rBGH milk is banned in most EU countries and Canada. etc. Under the SPS agreement. For example.

320 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION exactly this vagueness that makes the concept useful to the agribusiness GMO industry. It was established following the final act of the Uruguay Rounf of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Farmers cannot use the enhanced trait in the crop unless they purchase the activator compound from the seed patent owner. It is the basic doctrine. Related words: transgene. Technically known as Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs). including patents. which opened the floodgates to commercialization of GMO seeds without specific government or independent testing. " Trade Re1ated Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS) Treaty adm'inistered by the WTO that implements minimum standards for many forms of intellectual property (IP) regulation. signed as an Executive Order by President G. Bush in 1992 by the recommendation of Monsanto. There are two basic forms of Terminator or GURTs: V-GURT produces sterile seeds that cannot be saved for future planting. contains foreign DNA. TRIPS contains requirements that nations' laws must meet for copyright laws. which due to genetic engineering in a laboratory. Terminator technology A "technology protection system" that renders the seeds which are saved the first generation after the first sowing sterile. TRIPS specifies . transgenesis. T-GURT modifies a crop in such a way that the genetic enhancement engineered into the crop does not function until the crop plant is treated with a chemical that is sold by the biotechnology company. The technology is restricted at the trait level-hence the term T-GURT. Transgenic An organism.H. Terminator Seed Technology is patented by the US Government's USDA and Delta & Pine Land (which since August 2006 is a fully-owned Monsanto company).W. in the 1994 Marrakesh Agreement. and monopolies for the developers of new (GMO) plant varieties. The technology is restricted at the plant variety level-hence the term V-GURT.

.GLOSSARY OF TERMS 321 enforcement procedures. The TRIPS agreement is to date the most comprehensive international agreement on intellectual property. and dispute/resolution procedures. remedies.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ADUDDELL. Sowing the Seeds of the Green Revolution: The Pivotal Role Mexico and International Non-Profit Organizations Play in Making Biotechnology an Important Foreign Policy Issue for the 21st Century. Business History Review. Cambridge. Martin Edwin.poptel. War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race.. "Public Policy Toward The Greatest Trust in the World". Robert M.htm. 2004. and Cain. TRIPS and the Patenting ofAsia's Rice Bowl.isop. 1981. New York. htm. BLACK. Biopiracy. 1998. Louis P. .. Thunders' Mouth Press. 31 October.edu/profrnexivolume4/3summer99/Green_Finalm. 1987. "Kissinger and the Dirty War.ucla. Edwin. ANDERSEN. 4. Margaret Carroll. BOARDMAN.Vol. Harvard College. May. BIOTHAl et al. Summer 99.. http://www. ASSISI FOUNDATION. http:// www.uklpanap/ archives/larice." The Nation.org. 1999. Summer.

Sue. Praeger. Order 81: Patent. Vol. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. Sue. CAVANAUGH-O'KEEFE. New York. BROWN. Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technotronic Era. Flinders University. BRANFORD. The Rockefeller Foundation's Fundingfor Brain Research in Germany. New York. 1889. . COLBY. Harper publishing house. 1930-1950.. undated. 1969. HarperCollins.com/roots/index. D.iussp. 148 No. BRANFORD. Undisclosed Information. Zbigniew. http:// www. 1995. "Argentina's Bitter Harvest".C. Cornelius.iraqcoalition. Spring. Washington." The Ecologist. 2001. "Fertility transition and the Transition of Female Sterilization in Northeastern Brazil: The Roles of Medicine and Politics". Directorate of Intelligence. CAETANO. Inglewood Cliffs. Industrial Design. NJ.biotech-info. 2004. Lester. Argus Press. COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY. Charlotte. 1970. 32 No. 2002. http:// www. Andrew. French Actions and the Recent Gold Crisis. 1968. New Scientist. Judy. COHEN. Seeds of Change. 20 March. undated. "Why Argentina Can't Feed Itself. Thy Will Be Done: The Conquest of the Amazon-Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil.htrnl#Regulations. Vol. http://www. 39l. The Roots of Racism and Abortion: An Exploration of Eugenics. BRZEZINSKI.org/Brazil200 II s 101 SI9_02_Caetona. New York. 1997.orglregulations/index. Rockefeller Center Archive Newsletter. CARNEGIE. 2000. CPA Official Documents. .pdf. Robert. Integrated Circuits and Plant Variety Law. Milk-The Deadly Poison. Gerard and DENNETT. North American Review. 2001.8.BIBLIOGRAPHY 32 3 BORCK. 17 April. John.html. "Wealth". The Problem with the Safety of Roundup Ready Soybeans. http://www. CARMAN. International Union for the Scientific Study of Population. Andre. Southern Australia.eugenicswatch.net.

Lynn J. 26 June. COOK. 16 October.S. The Ecologist. London.nexusmagazine. Department of Food and Resource Economics. "Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine". and Its Functions. Edward. The Lancet. DEVORE. Ray. "Agribusiness Eyes Iraq's Fledgling Markets". Mary. The Genetic Revolution: Transforming our Industry. Corporate hog operations-and their lagoons-Threaten the Financial and Physical health of Family Farms". Gainesville. EWEN. 1999. http:// www.ibiblio.. Senate. address to The International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (lAMA). "Understanding the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement': EDIS document FE492. London. D. 15 March. A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. "Revolving Doors: Monsanto and the Regulators". GM WATCH. Heinemann.at/gentechnik_Iandwirtschafcfaissner. Hearings.. FL. undated. UF /IFAS. Nexus Magazine. http://www.Washington. Its Institutions.arge-ja. The Nomination ofNelson A. Crisis: In the World Economy. 2004. COOK. Stanley and PUSZTAI.mindfully. . FERRARA. Wambugu Wambuzling Again: Says GM Sweet Potato a Resounding Success?. Chicago. Gentechnik oder Bauern?..com. 2004. 2000. 17 March.324 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION. 1974. 2005. William. Arpad. 2nd Session. undated. Jennifer. 1980. Brian.html. Sally. Klaus. EVANS. September/October.C. Andre Gunder. FALON. Government Printing Office. University of Florida. Florida Cooperative Extension Service. "Greasing the Way for Factory Bacon. "The Great Con-ola". Rockefeller ofNew York to be Vice President of the United States. and Enig. 23 December. U.org/GE/ 2004/Wambugu-Wambuzling-AgainI7mar04. 2002. http://www. "Millions Served': Forbes. F.orglfarming-connection. FRANK. 1998. 9yd Congress. In These Times. http://www.htm. 2004. FAISSNER. 2002. GOLDBERG. August-September. Sustainable Farming Connection. Pluto Books Ltd. ENGDAHL. Christopher D. August.

HARKIN. HITLER. A Higher Form of Killing.org. HARR. Madison. undated.me. Tom. Trading with the Enemy: An Expose of the Nazi-American Money Plot. "The Negro Project: Margaret Sanger's Genocide Project for Black Americans". Charles. 1999. Scribner's. HARDELL. Benedikt. Reynal & Hitchcock.. and ERIKSSON. Tanya 1. Independent Science Panel.htm.grain. October. New York.blackgenocide.greenpeace. http:// www. 2004.html. Greenpeace International. 1982. Charles Scribner's Sons. 29 October. .. GRAIN. Prepared by the Democratic Staff of the Committee on Agriculture. GREEN. http://www. 2004. New York. HAERLIN. Lennart. "Opinion Piece about Golden Rice". New York. 2003 "The Case for A GMFree Sustainable World". ''A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Exposure to Pesticides': Cancer. GRAIN. and PAXMAN. 1933-1947. http://www.grain. Jeremy. Economic Concentration and Structural Change in the Food and Agriculture Sector. The Passing of the Great Race. HARRIS. New York. Ho. Translated by Alvin Johnson. archive. Peter J. 15 June.org. 1941.gov.org/ geneng/ highlights/food/benny. Noonday Press. Robert. Mae-Wan. undated. Lim Li.ar/efeme/24demarzo/ dictadura. Mein Kampf. undated. and Forestry United States Senate. New York.html. Delacorte. La dictadura militar en Argentina: 24 de marzo de 1976-10 de diciembre de 1983.. 15 March. 1988. 1936. The Negro Project. Monsanto's Royalty Grab in Argentina. http://www. undated.foodfirst. The Rockefeller Century: Three Generations of America's Greatest Family.pdf. Nutrition. HIGHAM. Iraq's new patent law: A declaration of war against farmers. John Ensor and JOHNSON. Miikael. 1983. GRANT. and CHING.orglnegro.BIBLIOGRAPHY 32 5 GOVERNMENT OF ARGENTINA MINISTRY OF EDUCATION.orglprogs/global/ge/isp/ispreport. Adolf. http:// www.

George E. September. New York University Press. National Security Study Memorandum 200. Initiating Memo.2. "Argentina's Torrid Love Affair with the Soybean': Seedling. 2000. "Monsanto vs. "Baghdad Year Zero". October. Lillian and Semino. 16. .centerforfoodsafety. July. Folder IS. "Cry for Argentina". 24 September.. "The sources of Soviet Conduct': Foreign Affairs. The Center for Food Safety. The Crisis of Democracy: Report on the Governability of Democracies to the Trilateral Commission.32 6 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION HOLMES. KRAMER. "PPS/23: Review of Current Trends in U. HUNTINGTON. Cate. INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND. et al. Volume I. Baghdad. New York. 1981. 2004. Carrie Buck vs. Briarpatch. Vol. 1975. US Farmers". Washington DC. No. 2005. The Supreme Court of the United States. 292. "Protecting the heritage of rice biodiversity". 2004. Naomi. JAMES. JENKINS. Clive.. 1947.cfm.H.. USEPA Regulatory Development Branch. No. Box 2. Foreign Policy". 24 April 1974: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for us Security and Overseas Interests.org/ Monsantovsusfarmersreport. 2004. "Nelson Rockefeller and British Security Coordination': Journal of Contemporary History. Henry. 2004. KENNAN. ISMI. October Term. 1926. 1948. Harpers' Magazine.S. Vol 335. Tage. KIMBRELL. JACKSON. KENNAN. 1932. Asad. Stella. KLEIN. Oliver Wendell. 1995.T. Paul. KEMP. 1974. J. 32. Iraq-Letter of Intent. Andrew. Bell. KISSINGER. Samuel. M. Memorandum of Economic and Financial Policies. and Technical Memorandum of Understanding. RF RG 1. Foreign Relations of the United States. 17 November. http://www. September. "Criminal Investigation of Monsanto Corporation-Cover-up of Dioxin Contamination in Products-Falsification of Dioxin Health Studies". November. Report of Tage Kemp to the Rockefeller Foundation. Ser 713. "Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2004': I S A A A. GeoJournal. George E. 1990. JOENSEN.

"Porto Ricochet": Joking about Germs. "Retrospectives: Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era". LOFTUS.hbs. . 1941. Martin's Press. Joshua. "ISAAA in Asia: Promoting corporate profits in the name of the poor". LEDERBERG. http://www. and German National Socialism. A. International Science Press Inc. GRAIN. Sydney. 1987. 17 February. Vol. Pluto Press. Journal of Economic Perspectives. Geoffrey. New York. Harvard Business School Executive Education Faculty Interviews. White Plains. 1999. LEONTIEF. Harry. W~. LEONTIEF. 1967. Stefan. The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People.grain. Oxford University Press. http:// www. "Agribusiness". LUCE. LAWRENCE. Henry. Annual Review of Genetics. LAUGHLIN. Part I. Report of the Committee to Study and to Report on the Best Practical Means of Cutting Off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the American Population. 2000. V. New York. LEONARD. Studies in the Structure of the American Economy. "The American Century". Oxford. "The Impact of Basic Research in Genetic Recombination-A Personal Account". and Goldberg.htm.exed. KUYEK.edu/faculty/rgoldberg. Susan E.html. Ray. "The Evolution of Agribusiness". and Race Extermination in the 1930s. 1987. 1994. KUEHL.. 26 April.. Oxford University Press. 21.BIBLIOGRAPHY 327 KREBS. Fall. W. The Nazi Connection: Eugenics. Capitalism and the Countryside. LEDERER.orgipublications/reports/isaaa. American Racism. Oxford. 2005. Cancer. 1953. "Cargill & Co:s 'Comparative Advantage in 'Free Trade': The Agribusiness Examiner. 1994.. Thomas c. Devlin. 1914. Mark. Life. New York. John and AARONS. Cold Spring Harbor. October.. St. 2002.

Anna-Rosa. Will GM crops yield more in Australia?. NETWORK OF CONCERNED FARMERS. 28 November.org.html. et aI. 2004.psrast. "US Grain Arsenal". James A. "Soil Movement Advisory". 13. The Selfish Commercial Gene. Human Life International.org. Rochester.. LA 067. 1999. 1998. 1997.eco.non-gm-farmers. June. June..edu/facstaff/Cleaver/357Lsum_s4_NACL A_Ch2. http://www. http:// www. 2003. Gundula. 1995. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. Business People and Latin Americans from the Age of Revolutions to the Era of Globalization. George. 1999. London. undated. "Rockefeller to end network after 15 years of success': Science.org!selfshgen. PRAT. and Warwick.htm. Hugh. "Silent Science': in Captive State: The corporate takeover of Britain. October 1975. undated. MILLER.soilassociation. Richard. Robert. Grain. 2004.utexas. Richard. 12 April. http://www. NEW YORK COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. PSRAST. Latin America and Empire Report. The War & Peace Studies. http://www. NACLA.com. "Are New Vaccines Laced With BirthControl Drugs?". Dennis. MELCHER. 2000. MARTINEZ I. Thomas.S. Making the Americas: U. Shattering the myths of Darwinism. MONBIOT. MN. http://www. New Study Links Monsanto's Roundup to Cancer. Vol. 19 November. Information Bulletin #3.cfr. No. Park Street Press. MEZIANI. . O'BRIEN. ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION. Little Marais. Pan Books. ('Genentech Preys on the Paddy Field". Vermont. HLI Reports. "The Seeds of Doubt".328 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION MANN. "Genetically Engineered Food-Safety Problems". NORMILE. The Soil Association. Environmental Assessment Initiative. MILTON.2.. 1999. "Fields of Genes': Business Week. 17 September. 2002. History Compass 2.

ROCKEFELLER III. "Genetically Modified Food Crops in the United States': http://www. A Brief History of Biotechnology Risk: The Engineering Ideal in Biology. Hidden Danger in Your Milk?: Jury Verdict Overturned on Legal Technicality. POPENOE. . "The ICCR at 30: Pursuing New Contraceptive Leads". RBGH BULLETIN.archive. People.org. 21 November... 1998. Edmonds Institute.umn. 24 February. ROCKEFELLER III. Applied Eugenics. POPULATION COUNCIL. OSBORN. undated. Arpad.. "Why I Cannot Remain Silent". 1961. 2004. The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Frederick. Washington D. 2004. New York. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. John. November.pewagbiotech. the Transnational Agribusiness Giant". 2004.com. PUSZTAI.clubdeparis.C. The Future of Human Heredity: An Introduction to Eugenics in Modern Society. Summary of the Proceedings of the Conference on Eugenics in Relation to Nursing. PARIS CLUB. Eugene W. San Francisco. PERKINS. Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. 1968. 1933. 2000. "Background on Cargill Inc. GM-FREE magazine. 1937. http:// www. Frederick. John D. Food and the Well-Being of Mankind. Second McDougall Lecture. 1972. 1999. 18 July. August/September. American Eugenics Society Papers: Conference on Eugenics in Relation to Nursing. John D.htm.. Macmillan Company. July. Philip J. Paul. 27 March.cbs. Weybright and Talley.edu/-pregal/GEhistory. 1999. Berrett -Koehler Publishers.corporatewatch. August.BIBLIOGRAPHY 32 9 OSBORN.. PEW INITIATIVE ON FOOD AND BIOTECHNOLOGY. Corporate Watch: GE Briefings. Iraq. REGAL.foxrBGHsuit. Momentum: News from the Population Council. http://www. PLAWIUK. http:// www. New York. http://www.org.org.

SMITH. Hope. Manner hinter Hitler.W. Anup. 1993. SIMON. 2003. Thomas and KUBILLUS. Essays . Don't worry. Managing Medical Research in Europe. 1994. Verlag fur Polotik and Gessellshaft. 1-8 January. "The Ethics of Triage: A Perspective on the World Food Conference".. University of Illinois. 9 April. "Food Patents-Stealing Indigenous Knowledge?". February.ipagcon. SHARPLESS. 2002. it's safe to eat: The true story ofGM food. Vandana.html. "Hereditary Transmission of Mental Diseases': Eugenical News. Devon. The Christian Century. Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge. 2004. BSE and Foot and Mouth. 14 February. W. Bologna. "The World's Wasted Wealth 2". Malters. 1973. The Rockefeller Foundation.. RODIN. New York. Earthscan Publications. J. . Volker. The Ecologist. Laurence.330 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION ROCKEFELLER III. Chicago. Edmund J. (editor).. Basingstoke. RUPKE. uiuc. http://www.. The Role of the Rockefeller Foundation (1920s-1950s).ied.net/blind_rice. Andrew. RUDER. 1994. Jeremy. SHAND.org.globalissues.info. John B. Vol. 1975. 2000. 2005. Van dana.edu. 1994. "Patenting the Planet': Multinational Monitor. Seeds of Change Symposium Banquet. Rockefeller Archive Center Newsletter. Harper & Row. "Iraq: Order 81". 1999. SCHNEIDER. "History and Trends in Agricultural Biotechnology Patent Law from a Litigator's Perspective". The Second American Revolution. Green Books. John D. SHAH. "Genetically Engineered Vitamin 'X Rice: A Blind Approach to Blindness Prevention". Ernst. ROWELL. Science. Fall. 15. Global Issues. CLUEB. SEASE. Institute for Economic Democracy. London. Politics and the Public Good. 1930. Macmillan.. 1988. 26 September. SHIVA. 1998. the Population Council and the Groundwork for New Population Policies. SMITH. http://www.H. SHIVA. in Honour of Margaret Gowing. N. http://www.biotechinfo. http://www.

SoyOnlineService.htm. Washington D. "Industrial Agriculture and Corporate Power".1916. 28 April.Ct. "Myths & Truths about Soy Foods". 2003. 2000.nz. http://www. Iraq and BNL.pdf. undated.. Global Pesticide Campaigner..html. Vol. US House of Representatives. f. Problems with Genetically Engineered Food. 2001. http://www. 2003. 1976.co. State of Illinois. undated. http:// www. Ag Supply V. UNITED STATES CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. Eugenics Quarterly. "Genetic Engineering is Regularly Used to Produce Lethal Bacteria". Jaan. A Man Called Intrepid. Release No. SHARATT.orgliacp. Ban Terminator Campaign. SOY ONLINE SERVICE. Scowcroft.C. 0384. Stoga.org/ bwintro/gebw. Statement by Representative Henry B.M. 1914 to September 30. University of California Press. SPITZER. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.l. STEVENSON. 593. undated.E. Neil. Soy Online Service. Ballantine Books.03.ch/ em_data/NOM -DELTAPINE. 14 November. Berkeley.M.BIBLIOGRAPHY 331 SMITH. Remarks by Agriculture Secretary Ann M. http://www. .. Kissinger Associates. Gonzalez. August. 2003. STATE OF ILLINOIS BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION. 1954. SUNSHINE PROJECT (The). SUURKULA. Veneman To the National Association ofFarm Broadcasters Annual Convention" US Department of Agriculture. no. 1917. "Female Sterilization in Puerto Rico". J.orglprobobstarch. Page H2694. William. Lucy. 122 S.psrast. STYCOS. Ann M.evb.sunshine-project.panna. Mark. American Empire: Roosevelt's Geographer and the Prelude to Globalization. Eagleburger. New York. II: Bienniel Reports of the State Charitable Institutions: October 1. "The Public Eye Awards 2006: Delta & Pine Land". in Biological Weapons and Genetical Engineering. PSRAST. 1992. "RAPI Says Terminator Seeds on Fast Track". http://www. Pioneer Hi-Bred. VENEMAN.

wto. November. http://www.332 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION WORLD DEVELOPMENT MOVEMENT. WT/DS291-3/R.wdm. Various Be Member State Safeguard Measures Prohibiting the Import and/or Marketing of Specific Biotech Products (hereafter the "Member State Safeguard Measures").org/english/ tratop_e/dispu_e/291r_4_e. undated.pdf. "GMOs and the WTO: Overruling the Right to Say No". http://www.org. WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION. . 1999.uk.

312.328 Avian Flu x. Abu Ghraib 202 Agent Orange 4.236. 82-84. 276.23. 165.229. 164. 304 Animal Health 29.297. 137. 275. 226. 228. xvi.206. 249-251.49.326 25-27. . 165. 135. 175. Baghdad xvi.74.INDEX A Bangladesh 44.235. 176-190. 142.197. 224.301 Biotechnology 3.284 Biotech giants 27.243. 6. 278.206. 153 Animal Breeding 7. 108. AstraZeneca 166. 166-170.195.244. 282-293 B 186. 184 Barclays 177 Basmati Rice 225. 61 Bank of Boston 177 Bankruptcy 48.303.241. 177. 220.222.281. 223. 151 Argentina ix. 71.301 Beta-carotene 165. 146.194.325.163.319 Biological warfare x. 227.305. 261.119. 323.215. 198. 287 Archer Daniels Midland 44.223.225. xvii.313 Agricultural Policy SO. 93 Australia 44.33. 249 Beef 13. 160-162.326 Biological diversity 162.271.182. 166 Biodiversity 149.265.298. 163.137. Ill. 232-235. 171.193-195.311. 90.275. 148. 230 Auschwitz

301. 114.277.31. Jimmy 16.252. 177. 140. 155 Carnegie. 60. 279 Bovine growth hormone 8.219. 46. 283. Zbigniew 40.104.296. 59.313.220 C California xv. 61. 179.115.289 Churchill.229. Domingo 180. 114-116. 323 Bunge 44. 179.109. 210. 316. 30--33.91. 96. 85.288.323 Bretton Woods 38. Andrew Cambodia 51. 191.330 Bird flu see Avian flu ' Birth control 72.319. 124.283. 106 British House of Commons 25. 133.282.223 Cloning 28.279. 223 China 44.25-27. 265. 135. 120.32.302.213. 301 Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) 197-200.187-190. 76.187.285. 115. William vii.166. Tony vii.279.327.41.327. George H. 4-8. 109.148.322. 52. 97. 288 Canary Islands 108 Cancer viii.242.329.177-179. 88. 217 Colombia 61.128.323 Codex Alimentarius Commission 13 Cold War 42.108-110.325. 290 Business Roundtable 219.227.73. 181 Citigroup 110 Clinton. 323 Carter.197.299.285. 77.54.320.231. 223. 83.195.184. 41. 11. 91.317 Bush. 13. 161.265.140 Cattle xvi. 118. 126.221 Bush.133. 17.307.238. 46.20.92. 142.334 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Bush.175. 168. 25-28.214. 9. 4.202.71. 43. 181 Chemical Bank 177 Chemical fertilizers xvi.16.208.208. 54. 33.323 Chase Bank 70. 186 Chemical warfare xvi Chicken factories 285 Chickens x. Winston 73. 113.77.79. 315. Caribbean 161 . 44.236.181 Chase Manhattan 92.224.188-190. 45.285-293 Chile 52. 26.211. 96.268.328 Cargill viii.280.315 Cavallo.319. 139.313 Blair.194. 74. 134. 112.218-221.315. 283.284. 52.220.137. 140. 301.312.276.260.302. 76. 94.100. George W.248. 186.191. 16. Neil 179. 129.180. 64-67. 16. 129-131.175.205. 114.272. 31-33 Brzezinski. Carnegie Institute 73. 63.181 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) 4.W. 55. 186. 60. 77. 206.270. 4&-51.276. 55. 139. 183.116. 140. 320 Brazil viii.281 Citibank 177. 40. 212. 176.54.142.

54. Rene 155 Dioxin 227-230.279.111. 81. 163.271. Charles 75. 228. 204. 206.201. 233-235. 16.278. 319 Continental grain 44.267.313 De Hoz.296.263.138. 293 Crisis of democracy vii.192. 88.273. 238.326 Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) 3. 195.280. 118.76. 89 Euphrates 202 European Economic Community 47.248. 143. 138 Contraceptive corn 271. 39.319 Dow Chemical 11.249.311 Drinking water 140-142 Dulles. 124 Exxon 108 see also Standard Oil F Darwin. 94 Eugenics Education Society 76 Eugenics Review 76. 53-55. 116 DuPont 15-17.107. 131.194 Debt crisis ix.263. 319 Epicyte 270-272.249.232. 280 Eugenicist Consumers for World Trade 219. 50. Fernando Martinez 178- 124. 317.300.92.243.208. 140.265. 185. 153.235. 123.328 CP Group 288.204.235. 124. 171.151.102-104.211 Delta & Pine Land Seed Company 257 Department of Agriculture (US) xvii. 218 Descartes.43. 177.93.234. 62 Council on Foreign Relations 39. 90.229. 47. 159.313-315.113. 311-313. 140. 136. 319 Corn laws 48. 239. 80.221. 251. John Foster 148.19.219. 250. 114.239.52. 120.165.319 Confinement feeding 139 Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) 127. 268-270.231. 202.331 Factory farms 136. 279. 1: 46. 4. 167.295. 162.14. 83.311 E Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 326 Crop dusting 115 Cuba 93 D Deregulation 4. 96.54. 142.142. 289.319. 321. 279 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 163.301.224.64. 137.183.285-289 Factory pig 139 Federal Reserve Bank 54 .223. 91.220.228. 238. 6- 296.INDEX 335 Concentrated animal feeding operations 139.303.143.270.155-158. 15-17.155. 60.

127. 94. 118.116.323 Gilead Sciences 16. 50.267 Food production ix.189. 8-16. 79.49.123-126.124.274 Ford.62.19. 248.133. 242-244. 91.250. xvi. 216.159. Alan 40 H General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 50. 169 Grain viii. 226. 115. 191.207. 66. 313.94.260.206. 30. 240.322 Greenspan. 123. Goldberg. 240. 252. 129-131.220. Human genetics 83. 132. 60.299.311.316.185. 92.214. 290 Harvard Business School 133. 142.230. 128-132. 24.241 Food aid 51. 23.184. 58.153. 123. 163.241.20. 325 Genome ix.161. 179. 162.291 Food imports 49. 60. 320 Food chain 222. 283- 52. 144. 320 Herbicides 129.268. 313.158-160. 83. 149. 133.204. 60.328 Grainseed firm 29 Granada 297. 160.52. Brian 156.54.293. H5N1 xvi.329 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) vii. 107. 204.80.317.55. 106. 272.108.S.90.258. 64 Free market reforms 184 G 281. 152.63.228. 168.314 Germany xvii. 31?.313 Hitler.288.55.307.127. 236-238. Food staples 167 Ford Foundation 73. 324. Gerald 57. 149.270.229. 125.181-183. Ray 133. 97.171. 136. 81. 177.209. 146. 153 Green Revolution ix.278. 151.336 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION Fertilizers xvi. 241.327 hCG antibodies 273-275.325. 213. 191. 152.218. 137.320 Genocide 62. 134. 202.320. 84.119. 128. 188.325. 308.325 Goodwin. 162.266. 148.149-151. Ill.233.175.184. 239.187. 303 Great Depression 103.227. 216- 171. 18. 192.96.172. 246. Adolf 66.320 Genetic use restriction technologies (GURTs) 257.189.124-126.279 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 71. 327. 94 .107.268.138. 175. 124. 123.228.165. Ill. 267. 163-168.43-47.205.317. 52. 313. 146. 63.296.330 Hog farms 138 Hog production 115 Honduras 176 Hormones 8.284.327 Golden rice ix.

175. Samuel 41. 149.Carlos 175.48.241. 215. l31.221 Kennan. 61.220 L I.197.327 M Maize 125.319.249. 149. 315. 32. John F.326 International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) 127.320. 179-183.220.226. 149. 165.12. 107.222.319 International Monetary Fund (IMF) x. Lyndon 114. 39. 116. 70. xvii.285.P.331 Kraft Foods 20. 119.253. 132. 111.165.220. Morgan 72. 78. 215. 59. 110. 116. 55. 87.228.123. 307. 298 Johnson.296 Indonesia 44.261 Hybrid wheat l31 I J. 176. 189 Mesopotamia 202. 106. 177 International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) 125. 54. George xiii. x. 129. Henry vii. 207 Mexico 12. John 111.G. Robert 127 Meacher. 130.104 Japan xv. l27.288 Insulin-like Growth Factor (IGFl) 9.319. xvii.61.161-163.195.246. 127.225. 31. 326 Kennedy.241. 181. Wassily 133. 180. 110-112. 197- Loftus. 69.126.242. 42-46. 32.247.114. 182 Human health 9. 161. 61. 108.235.167. Michael 31. 125 Hybrid seeds 124.273. 164. 114 Kenya 165.198.302. K Kantor.218.209. 164.326. 225. 148.216 Less developed countries (LDC) 59. xvi. 54 McNamara. Farben 108.184. 171.270.274.INDEX 337 Human guinea pigs viii. xv. 267. 127. 324-326.322. 319 Malthusianism 76 Malthusians 72 McGovern. 49. 162 Landless peasants 126 Leontief. 219.316 Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) 275 Huntington.179.267. Intelligence 123 India 44.320 Iraq ix. Mickey 16. x. George 45. 109.178. 32 Menem.269. 37-40. 148. 326 Hybrid corn 115. John Maynard 73 Kissinger. 52.93. 109.329-331 Irrigation 126. 176. xiv. 279. 171. 125. 108.323 Interest rates 129.320 Keynes.210. 143. .51-70.125-127. 176.126.308. 185.231.279.

94. 153. 257. 168 Plant variety 200.77. 175. David 180. 197.45-51. 176. 127. 44. 124 Nixon.320 Pesticide 150.37.194. 232.74.285 Pork 137. 310. xvi. 248.233-236. 124.64.198. 107-110. 27.66. 269. 58. Nazi Germany 77.229.315. 191 Paris Club 209-211. 181.72.108. 97. 178. 108 Paraguay 188.232. ll4.239. 331 Petro-chemical xvi Pioneer Fund 132. 320 Oil vi. 152.317.217 Mulford. 130.278. 4-22.323. 59-63.279. 272 P Panama 71.308 Population control x. 90. 280. 196.314.163.258-261. 45. 226. 133.101 Pioneer Hi-Bred Ill.289 Nitrogen ll5.302.210.317.223. 171.220. 120. 221. Richard vii.257-267. 85.274.225-228.75. ll3.308.264. 96.83. 41.331 Planned Parenthood Federation of America 76 Plant breeding 5. Hermann J.91 National City Bank 104. 292. 264 Peasant communities 187 Pentagon x.271 o OECD 163. 100. 8. 317. ll2. 65.207. 201-204.181. 158.316 Monsanto vii.313 Nestle 190. 193. 123. 194 Muller.206-208. 16. 203. 87-92.264.53. 84. 168.273. 143.294-303.198.96. 116.324 Middle East 116. 110 N Osborn.338 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION 165. 80.164. Poland 82. 135. 140. 159. 54.320.205.275. 250 Nigeria 61. 93. 269.301.138.322 204. ll9. 329 Patent xi.298-304.62.130. 291.325.62.200. ix-xi. 118.249.324-326. 142. xvi. viii.182-193. xv. 205. 44. . 66.284 Novartis 138. 143 Milk hormones 8 Molecular biology 152-156.296.43. 29. 89.188.243. 37. 164.16. 126. 151. ll6.296. ll8. Frederick 72.249. Over-population 85.236.103. 43.123. 308.278. 249. 42.301.255.239.330 Patented seed 225. 206.320.3ll People's Revolutionary Army (ERP) 178. xiv.328 Montoneros 178 Morocco 108.177. 176.220 Neurophysiology 245 New Zealand 195. 93. 195-197.323. 238-248.56.224-226.

4. 142. 127.235. 108-112.118. 253. Donald 16.129.74. x. 171.149. 69. 240.249. 39. 292 Rusk. Nelson 39. 289 Privatization 134.138.284.. 70.175. 21I.272.179. 57. 21. 226. 99 Puerto Rico 70. 249 Roche 283 Rockefeller brothers xvi.127. 189.15-17. 117. 41.171.158. 104.199.194. 84.205. 199.131. Arpad 21-29.153. Dean 114 S Q Quayle.132. RiceTec 225. 80. 201. 52. 186.134. 40.92 Rockefeller. Dan 5. 25. 199. 177-180.182.258-261.326 Roosevelt.168.192. 31-34. 192. 180-182. 146. 54. 1I6.315 Rhodes. Cecil 104 Rhone Poulenc 275 Rice ix. 8.290 Scripps Foundation for Research in Population Problems 85 Seeds of Democracy ix.83-85.232.329 Rockefeller.179 Rockefeller Population Council 53.203. 33. 96.323 Roundup Ready soybeans 183.209. 107-1I4. 100.176. 53. 55. 151 Social darwinism 76 Social Science Research Council 74 South Africa 176. 232. 34. Ronald 3.160-168.326. 182-193. 195. 288.164.320.231.242-246. xvi.177. 124.320. 324. 107.296.251. 137.315. David vii. 212 Psychiatry 79.325. 66.153. 160.130. 276.209. 331 Pusztai.90. 208.246. 238.31.298. 134. 96.8.20. 124.143.297. Roundup Ready 183-186. 185.218 Recombinant DNA (rDNA) 6. 64. John D.200.91.323 Royal Society vii. 69.214. 94.284. 62. 106. Sementes Agroceres 115 Shiva. 330 Smithfield Foods 137. 176. 166. 26. 96. . xvi.49. 39.171.216. 66. 71.195.330 Rice Council 208 Rice genome ix. 134.268 Soviet Union 43. 92.43.224-226.91. 6 R rBGH hormone 8-16.238. 26.248. 105. 168.211.195.INDEX 339 Potatoes 22-24. 123.226.284 Rumsfeld.211. lIS.133.115.264. 44. 322.329 Reagan. 7.274 Rockefeller.198.73. Franklin D. Vandana 165.196 Royalties 188. 316. 56.136. 197.291.172. 1I9.28.34.19. 195.323.324 Poultry production 286. Soybean(s) ix.75.93. 152. 33. 64. Laurance 93 Rockefeller.289. 128. 157. 195.285. 191.88.316.21.243.

296. 143.118. xvii. 96. 19.246. Margaret 3. 20.72. 18.239. 220.296. 118.105. 307 Thailand 61. Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) x.171.340 Spain 176 Spermicidal antibodies 272 Standard Oil 66.107.303.301.319-321.37-40. 51.99. Maurice 127.291. 231. 54.59. 187. 163.225. 199. 78.331 Tetanus x. 26.280. 316 Supreme Court (US) xi.226.271. 265.216-220.250.301.242-244.248-251.96. 201.168.223. 138. 29.209. 152.85. 178.320.326 Truman.272. 81. ll3. 316 US Agency for International Development (USAID) 65.127.305. 74.134.99. 50. 168.222.32. 34. 79.204.317. ll9.249. 263.112. 53.235. 109.31.59. 301 U 52.103. 127.167.340 SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION 183.294-299.87. 238.268.170. 141-143.289 27.164. 224. 297. 45. 1l0-1l2.69. 331 Strong. 301.285 Terminator xi.44.285. 1l0.317.331 Uruguay Round 163.198. 163. 172. 126.317 Traitor technology 259. 17.106.274 United Nations Food Safety Agency 13 United States xiv. 135.303.290.20. 164.210. 326.57. 291. 223.271. 98. 171 Substantial equivalence vii.323. 289.135. . ll4. 329.267.94. 128. 1l0. 104. 67. 221 see also Exxon State Department (US) xiii.259-261. 230- Syngenta 163.241.212. 257-267.322 Traditional farming 137.295.321.30. 104.323. 324 Third World 49. 236.88. 180 The Lancet 28.265.318. xvi. Ill. 124.204.329 UN Development Program (UNDP) 127.251.273 Sterilization 65-67.48. 260 Trilateral Commission 40.289. 80.55. 119.268. 113 Turkey 61.43.63. 3. 192.289 Thatcher.326. 191 Trait Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (T-GURT) 258.65. 106. 41.274. 190. 279. 194.271. 197.258. 197.221. 70-72.165.269. 148. 263.86.279. 238.226.239-245.225.324-326.43. 148. 273-275. 128.216. Tamiflu Syria 202 T United Nations (UN) 13. 76-78.274.229. xv.57. Harry S. 264. 89.

146.218. 280.154. 164.253. 204-207.258. 216.324.32. 43.260.315. 273-275.106 World Bank 30.23.235. 93. 114. 316. 133-136. 249.129.286. 167. 125 V Vaccination 98.225. 182. Ill.142-144.252.133-137. 96.129. 124.295-297. 219-225. 199-201. 13. 127-129.295 Watergate 56.319.232.70. 289.116. 165.317.311.49. 20. 106. xi. 19. 274. 4.245. )(Vi. 59.177. xvii.243. 163.321 Wilson. 267-269.39. 194.118.309. 175.280-283. 125-127.175 Z Zambia 268 Wall Street 27.160. 111. 110.271. Paul 40 W 313. 273. 275. 203-205. 165.134. 49.306.106.97-99. 216. 210.246. 4. xvii. 234.228.274 World Health Organization (WHO) x.269. 307 Vaccines 274.289 Vietnam vii.321.37. 44. 172 Volcker.30~309.55. 276. 261.218.52. World Trade Organization (WTO) x. 248.INDEX 341 148.305.282.44. 104. 101.34.296. 76. 64 Wheat xvi.313 Virology 290 Vitamin A deficiency 161.240.52. 217. 49.208. 207. 166.232-235.80.8~92.279.2~30.313 Vietnam War 18.321 US food aid 52. . Woodrow 104. 78. 123.80-84.114.227. xiv. 328 Vance.171. Cyrus 114 Vertical integration ix.204-207. 109. xv.212. 15.228.248. 127. 100-102.39.51. 112.231. 162.94. 99.226. 139.39.154-156. 18.202.332 World War II xv.